[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11085-11119]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2007

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 349 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1867.

                              {time}  1920


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1867) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2008, 2009, 
and 2010 for the National Science Foundation, and for other purposes, 
with Mr. Altmire in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) and the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hall) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support today of H.R. 1867, the National 
Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007.
  H.R. 1867 was introduced by myself, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Ehlers), and several other members of the Subcommittee on Research and 
Science Education. It was ordered reported by the unanimous vote of the 
Committee on Science and Technology, and is widely supported by 
industry and academia.
  The National Science Foundation was last authorized by Congress in 
2002 for 5 years, so we are right on track to ensure the continued 
growth and relevance of this very important agency.
  The National Science Foundation is the only Federal agency whose 
mission is to support science and engineering research across all 
disciplines. Currently NSF funds 20 percent of all basic research 
conducted at American colleges and universities. In many fields such as 
mathematics, computer sciences and social science, NSF is the major 
source of Federal backing.
  In its 57-year history, NSF has helped cultivate a scientific 
research enterprise in which the capacity for creativity and innovation 
is unrivaled in the world. Some economists estimate that half of the 
U.S. economic growth since World War II has been the result of 
technological innovation stemming from basic research and development.
  NSF also has a mission to achieve excellence in U.S. science, 
technology, engineering and mathematics education at all levels and in 
all settings from kindergarten through postdoctoral training.
  I don't think we can stress enough the critical leadership role that 
NSF has in improving STEM education, and I want to especially thank 
Science and Technology Chairman Gordon for tireless efforts on these 
issues.
  In addition to supporting research and education grants at colleges 
and universities across the country, NSF also helps to support the 
construction of world-class research facilities and equipment that help 
to attract the top scientists and engineers from around the world to 
U.S. universities.
  As we have seen high-paying jobs outsourced, our children graduating 
high school well behind their international peers in understanding 
basic science, other nations surging ahead in export of high-tech 
products, it has finally sunk in, funding basic research and teaching 
our kids math and science has a huge impact on our economy, our 
competitiveness, our national security, and our population's well-
being.
  H.R. 1867, like H.R. 362 and H.R. 363, two other Science and 
Technology Committee bills that passed the House just last week, is one 
more important piece of the House leadership's innovation agenda. It is 
also consistent with the administration's own American Competitiveness 
Initiative, which called for a 10-year doubling for three science 
agencies, the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology, and the Department of Energy's Office of 
Science.
  H.R. 1867 was developed with input received during two subcommittee 
legislative hearings, a number of other NSF policy hearings held over 
the last many months, and countless informal conversations with NSF 
stakeholders both inside and outside of government.
  Dr. Ehlers and I personally traveled over to NSF last month to meet 
with the Director and all of the Assistant Directors to receive their 
personal input.
  In drafting H.R. 1867, we tried to limit it to policy, administrative 
and budget issues that have arisen since the last authorization in 
2002, while leaving the Foundation with maximum flexibility in 
translating our guidance into practice.

[[Page 11086]]

  Likewise, we minimized the specific carve-outs, especially in the 
research account, where all of the grants are awarded through a 
competitive, merit-reviewed process, and where the Foundation often 
needs to respond quickly to new fields of science and new ways of doing 
science.
  I want to especially thank all my colleagues on the committee, 
especially Dr. Ehlers, Ms. Johnson, Ms. Hooley, Mr. Gingrey, Chairman 
Gordon and Ranking Member Hall, for helping to improve this bill and 
move it expeditiously through the committee process. This was a 
bipartisan effort from beginning to end.
  Mr. Chair, this bill is critical to American innovation and 
competitiveness. I urge my colleagues to support passage of H.R. 1867.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today, of course, in support of H.R. 1867, which 
authorizes funding for the National Science Foundation for the next 3 
years. As most of us know, NSF is one of three agencies targeted by the 
President's American Competitiveness Initiative. The ACI aims to double 
the Federal investment in physical science research over the next 10 
years. Appropriate investment in research development technology and 
math and science education will ensure that our country remains the 
world leader in competitiveness and innovation.
  The National Science Foundation is the primary source of Federal 
funding for nonmedical basic research conducted at colleges and 
universities and serves as a catalyst for science, for technology, for 
engineering, and mathematics education reform at all levels. The return 
that we receive from our NSF investments far exceeds the cost. In 
addition, the NSF peer review process for receiving Federal funding is 
to be an example for all Federal agencies and one in which I hope all 
of my colleagues more fully recognize as an appropriate means of 
investment.
  As reported, this is a good bill. I thank Chairman Gordon and Dr. 
Baird for working with Dr. Ehlers and with me to make improvements in 
the measure. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Hooley), who has been a tireless member of this 
subcommittee and has championed the issue of undergraduate research, 
which is critical in preparing our students for the future.
  Ms. HOOLEY. I would like to thank Chairman Baird for yielding me time 
to speak on this important piece of legislation and your incredible 
leadership on this issue.
  The bill we have before us today will strengthen the National Science 
Foundation and allow it to better serve the needs of this country both 
today and well into the future.
  The Foundation is unique among the Federal Government's scientific 
research agencies in that it supports science and engineering across 
all disciplines. Each year the National Science Foundation supports an 
average of 200,000 scientists, engineers, educators and students at 
universities, laboratories and field sites all over the United States 
and throughout the world.
  The NSF plays a critical role in helping the United States maintain 
its position at the forefront of global innovation and technology. The 
NSF provides funding and support for research at the Nation's leading 
universities and laboratories to develop products and materials to 
further our economy.
  Examples of recent discoveries by NSF-funded research include new 
materials to make solar panels more effective, technologies to make 
airport screening more efficient, and the world's strongest superglue 
based on water-loving bacteria.
  By supporting students at each phase in the educational system, the 
NSF helps our future scientists and engineers turn ideas into 
innovation.
  I am particularly pleased that the committee has agreed to include 
language in the reauthorization that directly ties funding for the 
Research Experience for Undergraduates Program to funding levels at the 
NSF. One of the few NSF programs devoted specifically to 
undergraduates, this program has suffered from a declining budget for 
the past 3 years. By tying the funding for the program to the overall 
funding of NSF, we will allow students access to the resources they 
need to further their research at their own schools and at institutions 
across the country.
  This legislation is not only good for students, teachers, scientists 
and engineers, but it is good for the United States in our leading the 
world on our innovation which drives our economy.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. And again, I 
thank my colleague Representative Baird for all of his hard work on 
this piece of legislation.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am pleased to join the speakers in rousing approval of this bill, 
the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007. As a 
scientist, I have been familiar with the National Science Foundation 
almost since its inception. It is an outstanding American institution. 
It is the best science research institution in the world in terms of 
their strong peer review and the good results.
  Just a few weeks ago, we had the announcement of the latest round of 
Nobel Prize winners. All of the Nobel Prize winners this year in the 
sciences were from the United States, and one of them was formerly 
funded by the National Science Foundation.
  The National Science Foundation has now provided funding for 170 
individuals who have gone on to win the Nobel Prize. By far, we are the 
leader among all the Nations, and it is not just our population. It is 
our ability to engage in meaningful and good research, research that 
results in earth-changing results, and that is extremely important to 
the foundations of science.
  The National Science Foundation has done so many good things since 
its inception, and as I said, it is one of the leaders in the world.
  It also has received awards from the Office of Management and Budget 
just within the past few years as the most efficiently run government 
agency. Now, that is indeed an important prize. I understand we are 
going to have a few amendments to try to reduce the budget of the 
National Science Foundation, and I think it is absurd to punish the 
best-operated government agency while we are continuing to fund other 
agencies which do not do as well, and we are not reducing their budget.
  Another factor is we often talk in the Congress about investments. 
Sometimes I think we never spend a penny of our money; we invest it all 
because everyone talks about their particular project as a good 
investment. Well, let me tell you, if we are investing money here we 
will get a higher rate of return on the money that we invest in the 
National Science Foundation than in any other government agency, except 
perhaps NIH, simply because the results are so astounding and so ripe 
for development by the manufacturing sector.
  I could give many, many examples, but let me just mention one. A 
friend of mine, Charlie Townes, a number of years ago, decided that he 
could develop a laser. Now, LASER stands for lamp amplification by 
stimulated emission of radiation. The initiative for that discovery 
came originally from Einstein in the early 1900s. In the 1930s, a 
theoretical physicist predicted that stimulated emission would result 
from a photon hitting an excited atom, yielding two photons of the same 
wavelength and the same phase traveling in the same direction. Mr. 
Townes decided he could build a laser out of this, and in fact, he did.
  I do not know what types of grants he had, but I think the total was 
probably less than $10 million. Today, the laser industry is a multi, 
multi, multibillion dollar industry.
  Every sewer that has been laid in this Nation and most parts of the 
world for the last 30 years has been leveled with a beam of laser 
light. Every suit, every piece of clothing that the people

[[Page 11087]]

in this room are wearing has been cut out by a laser light, not 
scissors, but lasers guided around, cutting out the patterns before 
they are sewn together. I could go on and on with many other examples, 
including medical examples, by the way.
  So that small investment of about $10 million resulted in thousands 
and thousands of billions of dollars in our economy. That is why it is 
totally absurd for anyone to think about reducing the budget of the 
NSF. If anything, we should increase it because the payback on our 
investment there is so good, so strong, that we should be increasing 
NSF funding, not decreasing it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say how much I appreciate Dr. 
Ehlers for his wisdom, his knowledge, his friendship and his leadership 
on this. There are few Members of Congress, or even, I think, few other 
people in the country who know these issues as well as Dr. Ehlers. He 
has been a teacher to students for many years and a teacher to those of 
us on the committee as well.
  I thank Dr. Ehlers for his fine comments.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Carnahan), a valued member of the committee who has led critical 
efforts on this legislation.
  Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1867, 
the National Science Foundation Reauthorization Act of 2007.
  I really want to thank Chairman Gordon, Chairman Baird and Ranking 
Member Ehlers for their work on this bill. Under their leadership, our 
committee has produced a remarkable amount of quality legislation, 
including this bill before the House tonight.
  Our country's global competitiveness is directly linked to the 
ability of our math, science and engineering professionals to develop 
innovative technologies, policies and scientific breakthroughs.
  Yet while it is important to support these professionals and their 
industries today, it is perhaps of even greater importance to support 
their professions and industries of tomorrow.
  In order for our Nation to compete with countries around the world, 
we must ensure that we increase the educational opportunities for our 
youth to study and pursue careers in math, science and engineering, 
while also investing in programs to enrich the quality of these 
opportunities.
  Making both research and the education of our children a national 
priority is not simply an investment in these fields. Our global 
competitiveness is directly tied to our Nation's economy and national 
security.
  NSF plays a critical role in influencing our global competitiveness 
as it supports science and engineering across all disciplines.
  Each year NSF supports an average of about 200,000 scientists, 
engineers, educators and students at universities, laboratories and 
field sites all over the U.S., including many great institutions in my 
home State of Missouri.
  H.R. 1867 authorizes the necessary funds for NSF which will allow the 
agency to foster relationships between academia and industry in order 
to spawn U.S. competitiveness and further the Agency's traditions of 
education in science, technology, engineering and math, the STEM, 
fields.
  I urge my colleagues to invest in the future of our children, in our 
country's global competitiveness and support this bill.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, as a past NSF grant recipient, I rise 
today in strong support of H.R. 1867, the National Science Foundation 
Reauthorization Act of 2007. I want to thank Chairman Gordon, Chairman 
Baird and Dr. Ehlers for their work in bringing this strong bill to the 
floor today.
  Today, we stand at the cusp of numerous technological breakthroughs 
that will completely revolutionize our way of life; from hydrogen and 
other advanced fuels technologies that will free us from our addiction 
to oil, to nanotechnology that has the potential to impact virtually 
every sector of our economy.
  Much of this research has been made possible by grants from NSF, and 
by passing this bill we are continuing our support of American 
researchers, scientists, engineers, educators and students who will 
ensure that these breakthroughs continue and that America continues to 
lead the world technologically and economically.
  I would like to point out that consideration of this legislation 
comes on the heels of last week's passage of the 10,000 Teachers, 10 
Million Minds and Sowing the Seeds legislation. Both of these bills 
were introduced in response to the recommendations of the Rising Above 
the Gathering Storm report, which was commissioned by Congress to help 
the U.S. compete, prosper and be secure in the global community of the 
21st century.
  This legislation we are considering today, which puts us on a path to 
double NSF funding over 10 years, will further build our commitment to 
competitiveness, being led in the House by Chairman Gordon.
  The NSF has a broad mission of supporting science and engineering and 
funding basic research across many disciplines. Basic research is very 
necessary, yet oftentimes, because it does not directly, only 
indirectly lead to advances, does not receive private funding. The NSF 
does this.
  This legislation also specifically calls on the director of NSF to 
give special consideration to research proposals having high importance 
for future national economic competitiveness. This is critically 
needed.
  One example is nanotechnology, a very promising field of research 
that has the potential to revolutionize our society from defense to 
health care to energy to environmental cleanup. This will help.
  The bill also gives special consideration to partnerships between 
academics, industrial scientists and businesses. I have spoken to a lot 
of professors and administrators at universities who say this is a 
major problem in our country of taking research and getting it to the 
market, and this will help to do this.
  Mr. Chairman, earlier today I had the opportunity to meet with five 
American scientists who each just recently won a Nobel Prize. They all 
emphasize that continued support of the NSF is crucial to America's 
future success, just as it is critical to their successes.
  So, as a proud cosponsor of this bill, I urge the House to heed the 
advice of those on the cutting edge of science and take another step in 
bolstering American competitiveness by passing H.R. 1867.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, it is a real privilege and honor to yield 
such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Gordon), Chair of the committee. Before he speaks, I just want to say 
what a privilege it is to serve with him and to offer that years from 
now, there will be Americans benefiting from technological and 
scientific innovations and in particular young people, scholars, 
benefiting from the education initiatives championed by Mr. Gordon. 
They may not know of the work done. He has done a great job, a 
bipartisanship approach to this committee. It is a privilege to serve 
with him.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I thank Dr. Baird.
  Let me just say that I have a 6-year-old daughter at home, and I am 
very concerned that she could be a part of the first generation of 
Americans to inherit a national standard of living less than their 
parents, a complete reversal of the American Dream. And if we are going 
to avoid this, it is very, very important that we follow through on the 
recommendations of the report on Rising Above the Gathering Storm.
  Now, last week we did. We got a good start. Last week, we passed the 
K-12 improvements in math and science education, as well as investments 
in our education system in other regards. This week, we are going to 
take another step forward, and that is follow the recommendations of 
increasing our commitment to basic research.

[[Page 11088]]

  Tonight, we are going to pass the National Science Foundation 
authorization which will double the National Science Foundation. 
Tomorrow, we are going to double the NEST budget.
  Let me on behalf of my daughter, I want to thank Dr. Baird, I want to 
thank Dr. Ehlers and our excellent staff for working together in a 
bipartisan way. I want to remind everyone that this is a bill that came 
out of the Science and Technology Committee unanimously because it is a 
good bill, it was worked on together in a bipartisan, Democrats, 
Republicans, with a very good staff. Again, I thank you for the great 
work you did, and my daughter thanks you even more.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the National Science 
Foundation Authorization Act of 2007. I appreciate the kind words 
offered by Mr. Baird and Mr. Gordon, and frankly, producing this bill 
was a lovefest. I am very impressed with the work they did on it. I am 
very appreciative of the very hard work that they did in putting 
together a bill, including direct interaction with members of NSF, 
talking to scientists who were familiar with the NSF, scientists who 
had received funds from NSF, and out of all that, we have written a 
bill that I think is a very good one.

                              {time}  1945

  My colleagues and I on the Science and Technology Committee have 
introduced a strong reauthorization bill for the National Science 
Foundation. It is a straightforward 3-year bill which provides 
authorization for the various research and education activities of the 
National Science Foundation.
  I am pleased that this bill establishes a pathway to double the total 
budget of the Foundation. In 2002, Congress wholeheartedly supported a 
5-year doubling path for the Foundation, and I strongly supported that 
and was very pleased to vote for it.
  Unfortunately, appropriations have fallen far short of that target. 
Last year I had consultations with the President, and partly as a 
result of those consultations, the President introduced a plan known as 
the American Competitiveness Initiative that sought to double the 
research budgets of the National Science Foundation, National Institute 
of Standards and Technology and the Department of Energy's Office of 
Science over the next 10 years. In other words, twice as slow as the 
previous decision of the Congress.
  I would prefer the faster increase, but I recognize realities and the 
tough financial conditions we have. So I am pleased to sign on with 
doubling over 10 years.
  The National Science Foundation was included in the ACI because it 
conducts world-class research in areas that support new, innovative 
technologies, which, in turn, lead to advances in telecommunications, 
homeland security, alternative energy and other areas of great 
importance to our Nation.
  I have the utmost confidence that the National Science Foundation 
will use the authorized funds in the most prudent manner, as NSF 
consistently earns the highest possible score in the annual Office of 
Management and Budget ratings of financial and budget performance.
  The National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007 will 
support the education and training of more than 225,000 scientists, 
engineers, teachers and students. In addition to discipline-specific 
research, NSF activities include cross-cutting initiatives on 
nanotechnology, networking and information technology, climate science 
change and the International Polar Year.
  It also supports the construction of major research facilities that 
are shared within and across many disciplines of the scientific 
community. NSF research and activities touch every State of this Nation 
and provide tremendous support at all levels of education.
  NSF is a unique agency because it is the only agency with a primary 
mission of supporting fundamental scientific research, as well as 
engineering research. Unlike some of our other science agencies, NSF is 
not a mission agency in the sense that it has an established program to 
target. In fact, it solves many problems through the process of 
fundamental research, often in a serendipitous manner.
  As Nobel Prize winner Theodore Svedberg remarked, as he accepted his 
reward in 1926, ``A glance at the history of science and technics shows 
that it is precisely the search for truth without any preconceived 
ideas, research for the sake of knowledge alone, that in the long run 
has most benefited humanity. The investigations which have seemingly 
been the most purely abstract have often formed the foundation of the 
most important changes or improvements in the conditions of human 
life.''
  It is challenging in this day and age to support this type of 
research. The U.S. has many pressing needs that require solutions on 
very short time lines, particularly related to national security and 
the health of our aging population. For this reason and others, we have 
seen companies decrease their investments in long-term research 
projects. Nevertheless, economists have confirmed the accuracy of Dr. 
Svedberg's statement that fundamental research has, indeed, paid the 
highest dividends to humanity over the years.
  Estimated return on investment in research and development is 
difficult to calculate, but generally ranges from 20 to 400 percent. 
That is an incredible payback. Furthermore, past investments in NSF 
have contributed greatly to major technological advances in areas and 
industries that are critical for U.S. economic growth such as 
biomedical applications.
  The former Director of the National Institutes of Health, Harold 
Varmus, is well-known for his following statement: ``Medical advances 
may seem like wizardry. But pull back the curtain, and sitting at the 
lever is a high-energy physicist, a combinational chemist or an 
engineer.''
  Continued support for fundamental research lays the groundwork for 
innovations in other disciplines that directly impact the lives of 
every American. We are here today to authorize a continued investment 
in this type of NSF groundbreaking work.
  I thank Chairman Baird and his dedicated staff for their work on 
preparing this bill in a bipartisan manner, and encourage my colleagues 
to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BAIRD. At this point I understand Mr. Kirk would like to engage 
in a colloquy. Would Mr. Ehlers care to yield some time to him for 
that?
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield such time as he may 
consume to Mr. Kirk for a colloquy.
  Mr. KIRK. I thank the gentleman, one of the only working scientists 
serving in the Congress.
  I had intended to offer an amendment to this legislation with regard 
to the mercury issue, but working with the committee, I understand the 
better place I am talking about is in the EPA Office of Science.
  So I would like to say that I strongly support investment in 
scientific and mathematical research, but I would like to engage in a 
colloquy with the chairman, especially to emphasize how essential it is 
for comprehensive and frequent research on mercury levels in one of our 
Nation's most treasured ecosystems, the Great Lakes.
  Mercury pollution is now a serious problem for my district in 
northern Illinois, as well as across the Nation. The Great Lakes are 
particularly vulnerable to exposure, as 36 percent of mercury emissions 
are generated in the Great Lakes region.
  In fact, there are currently 18 fish advisories for mercury 
contamination in the region, yet the Great Lakes are a source of food 
and especially drinking water for over 40 million Americans. This 
undoubtedly contributes to the recent estimate that the U.S. Government 
has seen more than 300,000 American babies born each year with a risk 
of mercury poisoning.
  It's critical that we begin to take an annual inventory of mercury 
levels in the Great Lakes to understand the sources of this pollution 
and especially

[[Page 11089]]

the trend to see whether this danger is growing. With this information 
the Congress would be able to provide more effective and comprehensive 
regulation of mercury pollution and mitigation of its harmful effects.
  I would like to thank Chairman Baird for agreeing to engage in this 
colloquy on this important matter, and I appreciate all his support in 
working to ensure that we have the most comprehensive, scientific, 
accurate and timely information on mercury contamination. I look 
forward to working with the chairman on this issue.
  Mr. BAIRD. I very much thank the gentleman for working so closely 
with us and with Ranking Member Ehlers on this. I absolutely agree with 
the gentleman from Illinois on the importance of mercury in the Great 
Lakes, and I applaud him for raising this issue. It is crucial that we 
continue to gather the necessary data in order to protect current and 
future generations in the environment from dangerous mercury exposure. 
I am aware and appreciate the gentleman understands that the National 
Science Foundation does not generally engage in this type of research, 
and, as indicated, it is really more the appropriate domain of the 
Environmental Protection Agency.
  Accordingly, I will be happy to work with the gentleman from 
Illinois, and I look forward to the committee providing direction to 
the U.S. EPA in a letter to that effect.
  Mr. KIRK. I thank the chairman for that. I look forward to seeing the 
committee's letter, because I think it will move the ball significantly 
to help this Congress redress a growing danger.
  To the gentleman from Michigan, a leader on Great Lakes protection, 
and removing environmental contamination, I thank him for working on 
this issue.
  Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentleman for those comments. We will be 
happy to continue working with him.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume in 
order to engage in a colloquy with the gentlelady from California (Ms. 
Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me this opportunity 
to talk about the importance of research into the environmental, 
cultural and health impacts of introducing new genetically modified 
plants and animals into our agriculture, horticulture and aquaculture 
systems.
  The National Science Foundation, which supports a broad range of 
basic research in the biological sciences, is well equipped to perform 
this basic research that will help us develop more sustainable 
approaches to pest management, understand and manage unique 
environmental and health risks, and even discover ways in which 
modified plants could provide environmental benefits.
  Mr. Chairman, this is critical research that the National Academy of 
Sciences has called for in a recent report. While I am not offering an 
amendment to this bill before us today, I do ask for your help in 
raising the profile of this very important issue as you proceed with 
the bill.
  Mr. BAIRD. I would like to thank the gentlelady for bringing this 
issue to our attention. It is indeed an important area of research for 
our Federal Government, and for NSF in particular. I appreciate and 
respect very much your continued interest and leadership on this. We 
would be happy to work with you as we proceed towards conference about 
raising the profile of this issue and the importance of this research.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to working with 
you.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, to close, let me just once again express my 
deep gratitude and tremendous respect to Dr. Ehlers for his leadership, 
not only now as ranking member, but over the years he has served on 
this committee. Quite literally there has been no more tireless and 
effective advocate for this legislation and for science in general than 
Dr. Ehlers. We all respect and admire that and appreciate that greatly.
  I also want to express my appreciation to Chairman Gordon, whom I 
acknowledged earlier and thanked for his leadership, Ranking Member 
Hall. I want to express a special gratitude to my own staff member, 
Hilary Cain, for her leadership on this and great counsel; as well as 
the committee staff, Jim Wilson and Dahlia Sokolov for their tireless 
efforts. They have spent hours and hours on this. We are grateful.
  With that, as Dr. Ehlers and others have so eloquently said, this is 
a good bill, it is a bipartisan bill. It has the endorsement of a long 
list of sponsors, who I did not enumerate here in the interests of 
time, but virtually every major scientific organization as well as 
leaders in industry and in academia have endorsed this bill strongly. 
It is a bill that this committee and this body should pass. I urge its 
passage.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my 
strong support for H.R. 1867, which authorizes $21 billion in funding 
for the National Science Foundation over the next 3 years
  The National Science Foundation (NSF) was created by the National 
Science Foundation Act of 1950, with a broad mission of supporting 
science, engineering and funding basic research across many 
disciplines. As the only agency dedicated to the support of education 
and fundamental research in all scientific and engineering disciplines, 
we must continue to be generous and fund the NSF at the necessary 
levels to remain at the forefront of discovery, learning, and 
innovation.
  In 1952, the NSF began by funding 28 research grants--in 2005 the 
number has grown to well over 10,000. In 2005, the agency received 
42,000 proposals for research, fellowships, and projects in science, 
mathematics, and engineering.
  There have been more than 100 Nobel Prize Winners and thousands of 
other distinguished scientists and engineers that have conducted their 
groundbreaking research with funding from the NSF.
  From successfully splitting the atom, to landing the first man on the 
moon, to mapping the human genome, it is because of our investment in 
science and technology that the United States can be credited for these 
accomplishments. The majority of the research supported by the NSF is 
conducted at U.S. colleges and universities and approximately 82.6% of 
its estimated research and development (R&D) budget for 2005 was 
awarded to U.S. colleges and universities.
  Today, we live in a global society and must continue to invest in our 
research and development to ensure we remain competitive in this global 
society. Every year, China and India graduate 950,000 engineers in 
comparison to the 70,000 the United States graduates each year. We must 
adequately fund and support the NSF, in order to be internationally 
competitive and continue to make those cutting-edge discoveries that 
have forever changed the way we view innovation.
  I thank Mr. Baird for bringing this legislation to the floor and 
encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, lately it seems as if science itself has 
been under attack. This Administration seems determined to choose 
policies that fly in the face of scientific consensus. They have 
ignored science on the issue of stem cell research, abstinence-only 
education, and mercury pollution. On climate change, the White House 
went one step further. The Bush Administration hired a Big Oil lobbyist 
to edit documents produced by climate scientists in an effort make 
climate change science seem less certain. These acts have caused some 
in the scientific community to lose faith in our government.
  I believe H.R. 1867, the National Science Foundation Authorization 
Act of 2007, will help restore that trust. The bill will provide $21 
billion for the National Science Foundation over the next three years 
to fund critical scientific research.
   Mr. Chairman, I have seen how crucial this funding can be right in 
my own district. The Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia 
University, a key unit of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, 
has worked in partnership with the National Science Foundation to 
facilitate new discoveries and fundamental breakthroughs in Earth, 
Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences that are critical for advancing the 
understanding of the Earth's dynamic systems.
  This work has allowed for a better understanding of volcanoes, 
earthquakes, and geologic faults. Lamont Doherty has also furthered our 
understanding of the effects of global

[[Page 11090]]

warming by mapping massive sub-glacial lakes in Antarctica and studying 
their role in the loss of ice sheets. The Observatory has also 
developed new geochemical techniques to allow the mapping of past ice 
sheets which will help us better understand how the ice sheets on 
Greenland and Western Antarctica will react to increased global 
temperatures.
  Now, more than ever, it is essential we increase our understanding of 
how our planetary systems interact and function as a whole. By 
providing the funds the NSF needs, we are investing in research vital 
to our national interests. Hopefully, we are also sending a signal to 
the scientific community that their work is essential to us as policy 
makers and to us as Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the McNerney-
Giffords amendment. This amendment establishes a new competitive grants 
program specifically for Hispanic-serving Institutions at the National 
Science Foundation.
  I would like to thank Representative McNerney and Representative 
Giffords for their leadership in offering this amendment, which will 
increase opportunities for so many undergraduate students. This 
amendment will focus attention on the need to involve more Hispanic 
students in the science field by creating a specific program for 
Hispanic-serving Institutions to receive infrastructure development 
funding.
  I would also like to thank Chairman Gordon, Subcommittee Chairman 
Baird, and the staff at the Science and Technology Committee for their 
assistance in drafting this amendment, and for their commitment to 
increasing participation of minorities in the science and technology 
fields.
  Hispanic-serving Institutions serve the majority of the nearly two 
million Hispanic students enrolled in college today, and many of these 
institutions offer associate, undergraduate, and graduate programs and 
degrees in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 
fields. The Hispanic-Serving Institutions Undergraduate Program created 
by this amendment will allow these colleges and universities to access 
the funding they need to enhance their educational programs.
  In my district alone, about 10,000 students attend Hispanic-Serving 
Institutions offering degrees in these science fields. Students at 
institutions throughout Queens and the Bronx, including Lehman College, 
Bronx Community College, Hostos Community College, LaGuardia Community 
College, Vaughn College of Aeronautics and Technology, and the College 
of Mount Saint Vincent, like those all across the country, will benefit 
from increased access to funding to improve these degree programs.
  This amendment corrects a long-standing inequality at the National 
Science Foundation. Unlike their counterparts of Historically Black 
Colleges and Universities and Tribal Colleges and Universities, 
Hispanic-serving Institutions have not benefited from a specific 
program to provide them with grants for research, curriculum, and 
infrastructure development.
  Without access to targeted capacity-building grants, Hispanic-Serving 
Institutions have difficulty increasing the ranks of Hispanics in the 
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields, where they 
have been historically underrepresented. Studies show that Hispanics 
earn less than 3 percent of doctorates in these areas, compared to more 
than 50 percent by non-Hispanic whites.
  This amendment also goes to the heart of the Innovation Agenda 
spearheaded by Speaker Pelosi and the new Democratic Coalition in the 
House to increase our Nation's competitiveness and create more math and 
science graduates.
  To maintain our global competitiveness, we need to increase our pool 
of scientists, mathematicians, and engineers. We can do this by 
ensuring that Hispanics, the youngest and fastest-growing ethnic 
population group in the nation, are prepared with the knowledge and 
skills that will contribute to our Nation's future economic strength, 
security and global leadership.
  This grants program will educate and train a new generation of 
experts in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics areas. 
By engaging Hispanic-Serving Institutions in this process, we can reach 
out to and involve more of the Hispanic educational community.
  The National Science Foundation, through its undergraduate and 
graduate programs, can assist Hispanic-Serving Institutions in 
developing programs to prepare current and future generations of 
Hispanics and other minority professionals in the sciences.
  In the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002, 
Congress authorized the Foundation to establish a Minority Serving 
Institutions Undergraduate Program, which was envisioned as being 
parallel to the existing Historically Black Colleges and Universities 
Undergraduate Program and the Tribal Colleges Program, and would 
include Hispanic-Serving Institutions, Native Hawaiian institutions, 
Native Alaskan institutions, and all other institutions serving ``a 
substantial number of minority students''. Unfortunately, the National 
Science Foundation did not implement the provision.
  This amendment explicitly establishes a Hispanic-Serving Institutions 
Undergraduate Program. The language would capture the components of the 
successful HBCU-Undergraduate Program, allowing Hispanic-Serving 
Institutions to achieve this same level of success. The result of the 
amendment is that now the National Science Foundation will be able to 
offer three similar programs for three different types of minority-
serving institutions, allowing Hispanic Serving Institutions to respond 
to a proposal solicitation tailored for them alone.
  I applaud the establishment of a Hispanic-Serving Institutions 
Undergraduate Program to achieve the goal of increased minority 
participation in the sciences, and I urge passage of this excellent 
amendment by Representatives McNerney and Giffords.
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 1867, the National Science Foundation Authorization Act, which 
will reauthorize the National Science Foundation, NSF, for the next 3 
years.
  H.R. 1867 will continue NSF funding on a 10-year doubling path, 
establish pilot programs to help improve funding rates for our young 
researchers, and encourage NSF to foster a relationship between 
academia and industry in order to improve the competitiveness of 
research conducted in the United States.
  The National Science Foundation, created in the 1950s supports 
critical science and engineering research conducted at over 2,000 
institutions across the Nation, which involves roughly 200,000 
researchers, teachers, and students. Despite its relatively small size, 
NSF has an important impact on scientific and engineering knowledge and 
academic capacity. While NSF represents only 4 percent of the total 
Federal budget for research and development, it accounts for 20 percent 
of all basic research conducted at colleges and universities, and 50 
percent of non-life science basic research at academic institutions. In 
fact, NSF is the only Federal agency that supports all fields of basic 
science and engineering research.
  NSF invests in the best ideas of its scientists, engineers and 
educators working at the frontiers of knowledge, and across all fields 
of research and education. Their mission is designed to maintain and 
strengthen the vitality of the United States science and engineering 
enterprise.
  In addition, NSF strives to improve its science and education 
collaboration at early stages in the education cycle. Science and math 
at the K though 12 level is becoming more interactive and engaging for 
our students in order to stimulate their future interest in the field 
of science, technology, engineering and mathematics, STEM. H.R. 1867 
would increase funding for certain NSF education programs including 
authorizing the ``10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds'' Math and Science 
Scholarship Act, H.R. 362. Our youth represents America's future 
scientists. Stimulating their interest at a young age promises the 
continuation and success of our future biological, physical, social and 
engineering scientists.
  In the state of Minnesota, the National Science Foundation supports 
research conducted at the University of Minnesota, the Mayo Clinic and 
many other academic institutions. The research conducted at these 
institutions has been paramount to the field of science and technology. 
Minnesota is proud to employ scientists, teachers, technicians and 
staff that address such cutting edge technology.
  The research supported by the National Science Foundation touches the 
lives of every American; from gaining a better understanding of 
Alzheimer Disease to Global Climate Change and is critical to 
increasing our global competitiveness. It is with this commitment to 
the continued economic, social, and cultural well being of my district, 
and of the Nation, that I rise today in support of funding for the 
National Science Foundation for the next 3 years.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment.
  No amendment to that amendment shall be in order except those printed

[[Page 11091]]

in the designated place in the Congressional Record and pro forma 
amendments for the purpose of debate. Each amendment so printed may be 
offered only by the Member who caused it to be printed or his designee 
and shall be considered read.
  Without objection, each section of the amendment shall be considered 
as read.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:

                               H.R. 1867

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``National Science Foundation 
     Authorization Act of 2007''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1?
  The Clerk will designate section 2.
  The text of section 2 is as follows:

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Board.--The term ``Board'' means the National Science 
     Board established under section 2 of the National Science 
     Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1861).
       (2) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
     the Foundation.
       (3) Elementary school.--The term ``elementary school'' has 
     the meaning given that term by section 9101(18) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     7801(18)).
       (4) Foundation.--The term ``Foundation'' means the National 
     Science Foundation.
       (5) Institution of higher education.--The term 
     ``institution of higher education'' has the meaning given 
     such term in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)).
       (6) Secondary school.--The term ``secondary school'' has 
     the meaning given that term by section 9101(38) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     7801(38)).

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 2?
  The Clerk will designate section 3.
  The text of section 3 is as follows:

     SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Fiscal Year 2008.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Foundation $6,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
       (2) Specific allocations.--Of the amount authorized under 
     paragraph (1)--
       (A) $5,080,000,000 shall be made available for research and 
     related activities, of which $115,000,000 shall be made 
     available for the Major Research Instrumentation program;
       (B) $873,000,000 shall be made available for education and 
     human resources, of which--
       (i) $94,000,000 shall be for Mathematics and Science 
     Education Partnerships established under section 9 of the 
     National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (42 
     U.S.C. 1862n);
       (ii) $70,000,000 shall be for the Robert Noyce Scholarship 
     Program established under section 10 of the National Science 
     Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 1862n-1);
       (iii) $44,000,000 shall be for the Science, Mathematics, 
     Engineering, and Technology Talent Expansion Program 
     established under section 8(7) of the National Science 
     Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-368); 
     and
       (iv) $51,620,000 shall be for the Advanced Technological 
     Education program established by section 3(a) of the 
     Scientific and Advanced-Technology Act of 1992 (Public Law 
     102-476);
       (C) $245,000,000 shall be made available for major research 
     equipment and facilities construction;
       (D) $285,600,000 shall be made available for agency 
     operations and award management;
       (E) $4,050,000 shall be made available for the Office of 
     the National Science Board; and
       (F) $12,350,000 shall be made available for the Office of 
     Inspector General.
       (b) Fiscal Year 2009.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Foundation $6,980,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.
       (2) Specific allocations.--Of the amount authorized under 
     paragraph (1)--
       (A) $5,457,400,000 shall be made available for research and 
     related activities, of which $123,100,000 shall be made 
     available for the Major Research Instrumentation program;
       (B) $934,000,000 shall be made available for education and 
     human resources, of which--
       (i) $100,600,000 shall be for Mathematics and Science 
     Education Partnerships established under section 9 of the 
     National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (42 
     U.S.C. 1862n);
       (ii) $101,000,000 shall be for the Robert Noyce Scholarship 
     Program established under section 10 of the National Science 
     Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 1862n-1);
       (iii) $55,000,000 shall be for the Science, Mathematics, 
     Engineering, and Technology Talent Expansion Program 
     established under section 8(7) of the National Science 
     Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-368); 
     and
       (iv) $55,200,000 shall be for the Advanced Technological 
     Education program as established by section 3(a) of the 
     Scientific and Advanced-Technology Act of 1992 (Public Law 
     102-476);
       (C) $262,000,000 shall be made available for major research 
     equipment and facilities construction;
       (D) $309,760,000 shall be made available for agency 
     operations and award management;
       (E) $4,120,000 shall be made available for the Office of 
     the National Science Board; and
       (F) $12,720,000 shall be made available for the Office of 
     Inspector General.
       (c) Fiscal Year 2010.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Foundation $7,493,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.
       (2) Specific allocations.--Of the amount authorized under 
     paragraph (1)--
       (A) $5,863,200,000 shall be made available for research and 
     related activities, of which $131,700,000 shall be made 
     available for the Major Research Instrumentation program;
       (B) $1,003,000,000 shall be made available for education 
     and human resources, of which--
       (i) $107,600,000 shall be for Mathematics and Science 
     Education Partnerships established under section 9 of the 
     National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (42 
     U.S.C. 1862n);
       (ii) $133,000,000 shall be for the Robert Noyce Scholarship 
     Program established under section 10 of the National Science 
     Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 1862n-1);
       (iii) $60,000,000 shall be for the Science, Mathematics, 
     Engineering, and Technology Talent Expansion Program 
     established under section 8(7) of the National Science 
     Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-368); 
     and
       (iv) $59,100,000 shall be for the Advanced Technological 
     Education program as established by section 3(a) of the 
     Scientific and Advanced-Technology Act of 1992 (Public Law 
     102-476);
       (C) $280,000,000 shall be made available for major research 
     equipment and facilities construction;
       (D) $329,450,000 shall be made available for agency 
     operations and award management;
       (E) $4,250,000 shall be made available for the Office of 
     the National Science Board; and
       (F) $13,100,000 shall be made available for the Office of 
     Inspector General.
       (d) Major Research Instrumentation.--
       (1) Award amount.--The minimum amount of an award under the 
     Major Research Instrumentation program shall be $100,000. The 
     maximum amount of an award under the program shall be 
     $4,000,000, except if the total amount appropriated for the 
     program for a fiscal year exceeds $125,000,000, in which case 
     the maximum amount of an award shall be $6,000,000.
       (2) Use of funds.--In addition to the acquisition of 
     instrumentation and equipment, funds made available by awards 
     under the Major Research Instrumentation program may be used 
     to support the operations and maintenance of such 
     instrumentation and equipment.
       (3) Cost sharing.--
       (A) In general.--An institution of higher education 
     receiving an award shall provide at least 30 percent of the 
     cost from private or non-Federal sources.
       (B) Exceptions.--Institutions of higher education that are 
     not Ph.D.-granting institutions are exempt from the cost 
     sharing requirement in subparagraph (A), and the Director may 
     reduce or waive the cost sharing requirement for--
       (i) institutions--

       (I) which are not ranked among the top 100 institutions 
     receiving Federal research and development funding, as 
     documented by the statistical data published by the 
     Foundation; and
       (II) for which the proposed project will make a substantial 
     improvement in the institution's capabilities to conduct 
     leading edge research, to provide research experiences for 
     undergraduate students using leading edge facilities, and to 
     broaden the participation in science and engineering research 
     by individuals identified in section 33 or 34 of the Science 
     and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act (42 U.S.C. 1885a or 
     1885b); and

       (ii) consortia of institutions of higher education that 
     include at least one institution that is not a Ph.D-granting 
     institution.
       (e) Undergraduate Education Programs.--The Director shall 
     continue to carry out programs in support of undergraduate 
     education, including those authorized in section 17 of the 
     National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (42 
     U.S.C. 1862n-6). Funding for these programs shall increase in 
     proportion to the increase in the total amount appropriated 
     to the Foundation in any year for which appropriations are 
     authorized by this Act.
       (f) Limit on Proposals.--
       (1) Policy.--For programs that require as part of the 
     selection process for awards the submission of preproposals 
     and that also limit the number of preproposals that may be 
     submitted by an institution, the Director shall allow the 
     subsequent submission of a full proposal based on each 
     preproposal that is determined to have merit following the 
     Foundation's merit review process.
       (2) Review and assessment of policies.--The Board shall 
     review and assess the effects on institutions of higher 
     education of the policies of the Foundation regarding the 
     imposition of limitations on the number of proposals that may 
     be submitted by a single institution for programs supported 
     by the Foundation. The Board shall determine whether current 
     policies are well justified and appropriate for the types of 
     programs that limit the number of proposal submissions. Not 
     later that 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Board shall summarize its findings and any 
     recommendations regarding changes to the current policy on 
     the restriction of proposal submissions in a report to the 
     Committee on Science and Technology of the House of 
     Representatives and to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation and the Committee on Health, Education, 
     Labor, and Pensions of the Senate.

[[Page 11092]]

       (g) Research Experiences for Undergraduates.--The Director 
     shall increase funding for the Research Experiences for 
     Undergraduates program in proportion to the increase in the 
     total amount appropriated to the Foundation for research and 
     related activities in any year for which appropriations are 
     authorized by this Act.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Honda

  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Honda:
       At the end of section 3, add the following new subsection:
       (h) Global Warming Education.--
       (1) Informal education.--As part of Informal Science 
     Education activities, the Director shall support activities 
     to create informal educational materials, exhibits, and 
     multimedia presentations relevant to global warming, climate 
     science, and greenhouse gas reduction strategies.
       (2) K-12 instructional materials.--As part of Discovery 
     Research K-12 activities, the Director shall support the 
     development of K-12 educational materials relevant to global 
     warming, climate science, and greenhouse gas reduction 
     strategies.

  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Gordon and 
Chairman Baird for the support of my amendment, and the Science 
Committee staff for their assistance in putting this amendment 
together.
  I would also like to thank the chairman and ranking member for their 
excellent work on the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 
2007. I strongly support the work of the National Science Foundation, 
and as a cosponsor of this legislation, I urge my colleagues to support 
this passage.
  Some years ago, I was a high school science teacher, and I clearly 
remember my students stopping me during one of my favorite lessons to 
ask the timeless question, why do I need to know this? Science is 
difficult. Global warming is hard to understand also. Some people are 
asking, why do I need to know this? Hundreds of years ago, Galileo and 
Sir Isaac Newton made remarkable discoveries about gravity and the 
behavior of falling objects, but to this day, most people couldn't 
explain the law of gravity or what determines the speed of a falling 
object if they had to. Most of the time people can go on with their 
lives, their everyday lives, without understanding scientific concepts, 
suffering no ill effects. You don't need to understand gravity to keep 
from falling. You don't need to understand your lungs in order to 
breathe. But global warming presents a new kind of a problem.

                              {time}  2000

  The understanding of global warming will play a significant role in 
our ability to actually address the problem. And, we don't have much 
time. Global warming will cause significant impacts, including shifting 
weather patterns, drought, rising sea levels, and disrupted wildlife 
migration patterns.
  Nearly every point on the globe is getting warmer, and the debate is 
no longer if, but when, these changes will occur.
  These threats are the most natural consequences of a worldwide 
overreliance on fossil fuels and destructive, wasteful use of 
resources. We have lived on the earth, but we have not yet learned to 
live with the earth.
  But we can't just give in to the fear and the sense of helplessness. 
We can turn the tide of global warming if we have the knowledge. That 
is why we need to know this.
  My amendment will allow the National Science Foundation to support 
the creation of K-12 science curriculum, informal education materials, 
exhibits, and multi-media relevant to global warming, climate science, 
and greenhouse reduction strategies.
  The education provided by this amendment will help people of all ages 
and backgrounds to make choices in their daily lives and in their 
communities to stop global warming. They will learn about the complex 
interrelationships between natural cycles and human activity. They will 
understand how their own actions and their own informed choices can 
heal the earth. This amendment by itself is, however, not the answer. A 
comprehensive and sustainable energy and environmental policy will 
require the expanded use of green energy such as solar, wind, and 
geothermal. We will also need to continue to find ways to reduce carbon 
dioxide emissions from transportation, from industry, and energy 
production. We need to increase the efficiency of energy use and 
transmissions, especially in buildings. We need to change much more 
than just our light bulbs. But people need to know why we need these 
things, and this amendment provides for that.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.


  Amendment Offered by Mr. Sullivan to Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. 
                                 Honda

  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Sullivan to the amendment offered 
     by Mr. Honda:
       At the end of paragraph (1), insert the following: ``Such 
     materials, exhibits, and multimedia presentations shall 
     reflect the diversity of scientific opinion, including the 
     diversity of opinion regarding the impact of human activities 
     on climate change, and shall also reflect the impact of 
     greenhouse gas reduction strategies on developing nations, 
     United States energy security, United States energy costs, 
     the global and United States economy, low income and middle 
     class individuals, and those on fixed incomes.''.
       At the end of paragraph (2), insert the following: ``Such 
     materials, exhibits, and multimedia presentations shall 
     reflect the diversity of scientific opinion, including the 
     diversity of opinion regarding the impact of human activities 
     on climate change, and shall also reflect the impact of 
     greenhouse gas reduction strategies on developing nations, 
     United States energy security, United States energy costs, 
     the global and United States economy, low income and middle 
     class individuals, and those on fixed incomes.''.

  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I wish to reserve a point of order on this 
particular amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, I believe Mr. Honda is right on track 
with this amendment. However, I believe my amendment will strengthen 
his amendment.
  Simply, my amendment ensures that children are educated on all 
aspects of global climate change, from global warming, climate science, 
and greenhouse gas reduction, to human activities on climate change, 
and the impact of greenhouse gas reduction strategies on developing 
nations, U.S. energy security, U.S. energy costs, and the global and 
U.S. economies.
  The decisions we make today in this Congress will not only affect our 
children but will affect many generations to come. As the father of 
four children, I feel it is imperative that they know all the 
viewpoints on an issue so that they can make an educated decision. It 
is important that they obtain knowledge through schools and their 
parents to make informed decisions, especially when those decisions 
will affect the environment and the economy.
  Our children are our country's future. What a bright future they have 
ahead of them. Every time I look at my four children, I think of the 
tough choices they will have to make on the road ahead, and hope that 
my wife and I have taught them to make the best decisions possible. I 
know that, between the education they receive at home and the education 
they receive at school, they will be well equipped to face the 
important choices later on in life.
  It is important to me that the science education they receive in 
school reflect the diversity of scientific viewpoints on this very 
important issue. This is something my friends on the other side of the 
aisle have long advocated for and something my amendment achieves.
  With 36.4 million elementary school-aged children and 16.8 million 
high school-aged children in our country, it is obvious that the 
science education they get today will dramatically affect their future 
tomorrow.
  Thanks to advanced technologies, today's science classes are much 
more advanced than the ones I took when I was in school. Yet there are 
so many viewpoints out there on scientific subjects, especially climate 
change, it is sometimes difficult to present all views fairly to them. 
However, I feel that

[[Page 11093]]

this is important, especially on an issue as sensitive and politically 
charged as global climate change.
  Our children are our future, and we owe it to them to provide them 
with the best most balanced education possible. My amendment will help 
achieve that by presenting all viewpoints to students in kindergarten 
through 12th grade. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have 
long called for all scientific positions to be heard, and my amendment 
achieves this. I encourage all my colleagues to support this amendment 
and ensure that all students receive fair and balanced scientific 
education.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman continue to reserve his point of 
order?
  Mr. BAIRD. I continue to reserve.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the sense of what the gentleman 
is raising with his second order amendment. Having taught science 
myself, I believe it is absolutely important to share different sides 
of it. My concern is I think you are sort of micromanaging the 
education process, however, positive your intent may be. And the 
gentleman himself just acknowledged that students from K-12 need to 
have balanced information.
  I question whether we really want to mandate that a kindergarten 
teacher educate her or his students on the impact of greenhouse gases 
on U.S. energy security, global developing nations, et cetera.
  I think it is a fair point and absolutely an important point that we 
present different sides of this issue, and I applaud the gentleman for 
raising that.
  I would, however, note that the International Panel on Climate 
Change, which we have had two hearings of in this committee, has 
clearly unanimously agreed on some general principles: That the climate 
temperature is increasing; that humans are significantly responsible 
for at least a substantial portion of that increase; and, that it will 
have very important consequences for the well-being of the world.
  So one of the problems I have is the gentleman's amendment would seem 
to suggest that there is an equal weight of evidence against that 
perspective as there is in favor of it. And I don't recall if the 
gentleman attended those two hearings, but if he did, I think it was 
pretty clear that scientists from around the world do not consider that 
there is an equal weight among those who might refute the evidence of 
global warming and the human causes thereof.
  It is absolutely legitimate that we look at the pros and cons of the 
various strategies to remedy that; but to micromanage it in this way, 
which is not what the gentleman from California's initial amendment 
did, I think is a mistake. I certainly wouldn't want a kindergarten 
teacher who is trying to educate his or her students about the 
potential problems of global warming to say, ``Oh, my goodness. I don't 
have in my curriculum for these 5-year-olds a lesson on the impact of 
greenhouse gas on developing nations or United States energy 
security.'' I think a kindergarten teacher might be much more likely to 
say, ``Hey, kids the world is getting hotter. You and I and your folks 
can have a role in trying to reduce that problem, and it is in all of 
our best interests to do so.''
  I would hate to see a kindergarten teacher micromanaged like this, 
however well-intentioned the gentleman's amendment is. And I still 
reserve the point of order, but if we don't succeed in that, I 
certainly urge opposition to this at this point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman continue to reserve his point of 
order?
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, at this point I will withdraw the point of 
order, but I would urge opposition to this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is withdrawn.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan) to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Honda).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from California will be postponed.


            Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida

  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida:
       In section 3(a)(1), strike ``There'' and insert ``Except as 
     provided in paragraph (3), there''.
       At the end of section 3(a), insert the following new 
     paragraph:
       (3) Limitation.--Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), 
     the total amount authorized to be appropriated under this 
     subsection shall not exceed the amount actually appropriated 
     for the Foundation for fiscal year 2007 if--
       (A) the total amount appropriated for the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal year 2008 is 
     less than $17,309,400,000;
       (B) the total amount appropriated for the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration Exploration Systems for 
     fiscal year 2008 is less than $3,923,800,000; or
       (C) the total amount appropriated for the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration Space Operations for 
     fiscal year 2008 is less than $6,791,700,000.
       In section 3(b)(1), strike ``There'' and insert ``Except as 
     provided in paragraph (3), there''.
       At the end of section 3(b), insert the following new 
     paragraph:
       (3) Limitation.--Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), 
     the total amount authorized to be appropriated under this 
     subsection shall not exceed the amount actually appropriated 
     for the Foundation for fiscal year 2008 if--
       (A) the total amount appropriated for the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal year 2009 is 
     less than $17,614,200,000;
       (B) the total amount appropriated for the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration Exploration Systems for 
     fiscal year 2009 is less than $4,312,800,000; or
       (C) the total amount appropriated for the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration Space Operations for 
     fiscal year 2009 is less than $6,710,300,000.
       In section 3(c)(1), strike ``There'' and insert ``Except as 
     provided in paragraph (3), there''.
       At the end of section 3(c), insert the following new 
     paragraph:
       (3) Limitation.--Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), 
     the total amount authorized to be appropriated under this 
     subsection shall not exceed the amount actually appropriated 
     for the Foundation for fiscal year 2009 if--
       (A) the total amount appropriated for the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal year 2010 is 
     less than $18,026,300,000;
       (B) the total amount appropriated for the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration Exploration Systems for 
     fiscal year 2010 is less than $4,757,800,000; or
       (C) the total amount appropriated for the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration Space Operations for 
     fiscal year 2010 is less than $6,625,700,000.

  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I wish to reserve a point of order on this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the authors of 
this piece of legislation, and make very clear that I am a strong 
supporter of the National Science Foundation. Indeed, I have an 
undergraduate degree in a science field, biochemistry. I did basic 
science research as an undergraduate, and I fully recognize the need 
for this country to make a significant increase in our investment in 
basic science research as the kind of research that comes through the 
National Science Foundation.
  My concern before the committee today is that the National Science 
Foundation is in the same budget category as NASA; and already, the new 
majority this year has chosen to significantly cut funding to NASA.
  Specifically, over one-half billion dollars was reduced out of the 
NASA budget to fund the replacement for the space shuttle. The 
replacement for the space shuttle is badly needed. Our shuttle fleet is 
aging, and indeed we

[[Page 11094]]

are looking at a scenario in the early part of the next decade where we 
will not have the capability of putting men and women into space. And 
we, the United States of America, the greatest country in the world, 
will be relying on the Russians to put our astronauts into space for 
many, many years. And, that the further reductions in NASA that will 
put forward by the new majority have the potential to lengthen that 
period even further, and possibly perhaps permanently cripple our 
manned space flight program.
  So my amendment is very simple and very straightforward. Basically 
what it says is that we are not going to cut NASA for the purpose of 
plussing up the National Science Foundation. I believe we need to fund 
both of these programs, and that is my goal and that is the purpose of 
my amendment.
  I think one of the things that the authors of this bill keep talking 
about, which is very revealing and I think very important to the debate 
we are having right now, they talk about the importance of training 
kids in math and science, and that we are falling behind in our 
international competitiveness. But I can tell you, when I talk to 
teachers all across the country about what motivates our young people 
to study math and science, it is not the level of grants that are 
coming out of the National Science Foundation, it is actually our space 
program and an enthusiasm for the possibility or the chance that they 
might some day be able to participate in the space program, the manned 
space flight program in particular that motivates our kids.
  So I think these two programs are really linked at the hip, and I 
think it is important that we do not fund one at the expense of the 
other. The current language in this bill has the potential to create 
that climate, and so I think it is critically important that the point 
of order be waived and that my amendment move forward and be approved 
by this body.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the point of order, 
but I would like to move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Andrews). The point of order is reserved.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate and admire and 
respect the gentleman from Florida, and I understand full well where he 
is coming from. He has been a passionate supporter of our manned space 
program, and I share some of his concerns about the impact on that 
budget. I do think, however, that his offsets are wrong, and that is 
why I reserved the point of order which in just a moment I will press.

                              {time}  2015

  There are many, many places in the Federal budget where we could find 
possible money to support the gentleman's aims, many within, for 
example, the Commerce appropriations bill.
  It is possible for the gentleman to adjust revenue impacts of tax 
cuts. It would be possible for the gentleman to seek offsets or matches 
through funding for the war in Iraq, which is burning about $2.5 
billion per week from our economy.
  So if the gentleman is interested, as I know he is, in supporting 
space flight and continued investment in that, I would suggest that 
more appropriate offsets are available elsewhere in the Federal budget.
  And I would also say it would be just terribly unfortunate to hold 
the Science Foundation budget, which this bill authorizes, hostage. 
You've got the wrong hostage. There are other places where lots more 
money is being reduced from the revenue stream or being expended on 
things that may not be in the best long-term national interest of this 
country. And for that reason, and for the fact that I actually consider 
the amendment nongermane, I will have to oppose it.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. BAIRD. At this point, if it's appropriate to do so, I would wish 
to press the point of order with the Chair, if that's appropriate 
procedure at this point.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Andrews). Will the gentleman state his point 
of order?
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chair, I have reserved a point of order. The amendment 
offered by the gentleman is not germane to the bill it is amending and, 
therefore, violates clause 7 of rule XVI.
  The underlying section of the bill being amended is specific to the 
National Science Foundation, while the amendment introduces another 
unrelated agency, NASA, so the subject matter of the amendment is 
different than the underlying bill.
  In addition, the amendment places an unrelated contingency on the 
authorization of NSF funds. On this point I would cite Deschler's 
Precedents, Chapter 28, 31.22.
  Lastly, the purpose of the underlying section of the bill is to 
authorize appropriations for NSF, while the amendment seeks to affect 
the appropriations for NASA, so the fundamental purpose of the 
amendment is different from the underlying provision, and the scope of 
the underlying provision is significantly enlarged, and, therefore, I 
would urge that the amendment be ruled out of order.
  The Acting Chairman. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just simply point out to my friends on the 
other side that this amendment was duly and appropriately presented to 
the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee has all of the availability of 
the parliamentarians and the appropriate expertise to be able to 
determine whether or not the amendment should be made in order. They 
determined, in their wisdom, that it should be made in order. And 
therefore, I would hope that the Chair would rule that, in fact, this 
amendment is appropriate, and that it addresses an issue that is of 
importance to the gentleman from Florida and importance to this Nation; 
and I would hope that we'd move forward with the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there any other Member who wishes to be 
recognized on the point of order?
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be recognized on the 
point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that it is inappropriate to exercise a point 
of order on this amendment. It's quite clear that the NASA budget and 
the National Science Foundation are within the same budget category, 
function 250, and that there's a strong relationship between increasing 
the National Science Foundation that it can have a negative impact on 
NASA.
  Furthermore, as my friend from Georgia just indicated, we have moved 
several bills through this body. Just today we did one where multiple 
points of order were waived. And the bottom line here, in my opinion, 
is NASA a priority for the new majority in this Congress. I don't 
believe it is. I don't believe it's a sufficient enough priority, and I 
ask that the point of order not be sustained.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of 
order, seeing no other Members who wish to be recognized.
  The gentleman from Washington makes a point of order that the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida is not germane. The 
test of germaneness is the relationship of the amendment to the pending 
portion of the bill, section 3.
  Clause 7 of rule XVI, the germaneness rule, provides that no 
proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall 
be admitted under color of amendment. One of the central tenets of the 
germaneness rule is that an amendment may not condition the 
effectiveness of legislation pending an unrelated condition. Examples 
of this principle may be found in the Deschler-Brown Precedents, 
chapter 28, section 30.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida proposes a 
condition on the level of authorizations contained in section 3. The 
condition relates to funding levels for the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration. The activities of that separate entity are not 
related to an authorization for the National Science Foundation. As 
such, the amendment proposes an unrelated condition.

[[Page 11095]]

  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida is, therefore, 
not germane. The point of order is sustained.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Would it have been possible for the Rules 
Committee to propose a rule to the House to waive the rule under which 
the Chair has just ruled this amendment out of order?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman does not state a parliamentary 
inquiry. The gentleman's question is hypothetical.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, isn't it true that the Rules 
Committee has the authority to waive the rules under which this House 
operates so that certain amendments may be brought to the floor?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole can 
only comment on the rule in operation for this bill.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the Chair.


         Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Campbell of California

  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Campbell of California:
       At the end of section 3, insert the following new 
     subsection:

       (h) Limitation.--None of the funds authorized under this 
     section may be used for research related to--
       (1) archives of Andean Knotted-String Records;
       (2) the accuracy in the cross-cultural understanding of 
     others' emotions;
       (3) bison hunting on the late prehistoric Great Plains;
       (4) team versus individual play;
       (5) sexual politics of waste in Dakar, Senegal;
       (6) social relationships and reproductive strategies of 
     Phayre's Leaf Monkeys; and
       (7) cognitive model of superstitious belief.

  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, we have a budget problem 
here in Washington, the Federal Government. The budget that was 
recently passed off of this floor has a deficit in it, continues that 
deficit for the next 4 years. It has a tax increase in it, the largest 
tax increase in American history, going forward. And it also continues 
to raid the Social Security funds, take the Social Security surplus 
that we have and spend it on things that are unrelated to Social 
Security. So we have a budget crisis going on.
  What this amendment does is it says that there are certain things 
upon which we should not be spending money through this bill during 
this time of budget deficits, stealing Social Security funds, and 
increasing taxes.
  What this amendment does, it says there's just a couple of things 
that we should not be increasing the deficit by spending money on, and 
I quote, ``The Archives of Andean Knotted-String Records,'' or to study 
``The Accuracy in Cross-Cultural Understanding of Others' Emotions.''
  This amendment also says that we don't want to increase spending and, 
therefore, increase taxes in order to pay for a study of ``Bison 
Hunting on the Late Prehistoric Great Plains'' or ``Team Versus 
Individual Play'' or ``The Sexual Politics of Waste in Dakar.''
  And it also says that we don't want to increase spending and spend 
any of this money in this authorization and, thereby, be continuing to 
raid the Social Security Trust Funds in order to study ``The Social 
Relationships and Reproductive Strategies of Phayre's Leaf Monkeys'' or 
``The Cognitive Model of Superstitious Belief.''
  Now, Mr. Chairman, I understand that there is a process of peer 
review from which these studies come in the National Science 
Foundation, and that's all well and good. But our job here is we are 
the elected representatives and stewards of the taxpayers' money, not 
the academics in the National Science Foundation, and it is our 
decision whether or not we wish to spend taxpayers' funds on studies of 
the social relationships and reproductive strategies of Phayre's leaf 
monkeys or on bison hunting on the late prehistoric Great Plains. I 
think we should not do that.
  I am sure that some believe that these are very fine academic 
studies. That's excellent. Within the realms of academic halls, they 
may think a number of things are fine academic studies. That's not the 
question.
  The question before us is, do these things rise to the standard of 
requiring expenditures of taxpayer funds in a time of deficits, 
proposed tax increases and raiding Social Security funds? I think the 
answer is a resounding no. I think the answer should be a resounding 
no, which means that I would hope that the vote on this amendment would 
be an equally resounding yes.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I appreciate the gentleman's comments about the budget deficit, and I 
would first suggest that the deficit rose to historic levels under the 
leadership of the former majority party, largest deficits in the 
history of this country, indeed, were accrued with President Bush and 
the former majority.
  Looking to these studies, some of which are $10,000, now absolutely 
we must make sure that we spend all the taxpayer dollars wisely. But 
let me just share with you what the American Association for 
Advancement of Science, probably the most prestigious scientific body 
in this country, has said. Prohibiting specific grants sets a dangerous 
precedent for scientific research that has progressed and advanced for 
decades through freedom of inquiry into a broad spectrum of subjects. 
While congressional oversight of Federal programs is, of course, 
important, second-guessing peer review in this way could compromise the 
fabric of our public research enterprise one thread at a time. 
Therefore, we urge you to oppose such amendments.
  Similar sentiments have been voiced by the Association of American 
Universities.
  And I would be tempted to ask the gentleman from California, except 
he's already stated his piece, why he would be opposing research that 
has been supported by the United States Army Research Institute; that 
is seen as critical to the security of our troops serving in Iraq.
  Now, my wager is the gentleman's saying to himself right now, I have 
no idea what the chairman is speaking about here. And that's the 
problem. When you look at a cursory examination of the title, or an 
abstract, you don't have an idea. That's why we have peer review.
  Which particular study am I talking about? I'm talking about the 
Study of the Accuracy of Cross Cultural Understanding of Others' 
Emotions. What we are talking about here is if you're going to be 
dealing with people from another culture, and you misread their 
expression of emotions, it can cost you your life, your buddies their 
life, or the innocent civilians their lives. The U.S. Army Research 
Institute believes this is important, and they support the basic 
elements of this kind of study.
  I also am not sure, the gentleman seems to suggest, it seems, that we 
here in the Congress, with a cursory evaluation of the abstracts from 
studies, should insert ourselves in the peer-review process. I wonder 
if the gentleman had looked at chemistry research or physics research 
in the same way, and do we really want to spend this body's time, and 
do you, sir, or you, sir, have the expertise to evaluate these studies? 
That's why we have a peer-review process. That's why we have a National 
Science Foundation. It is why we have a Science Foundation Board to 
direct us.
  I absolutely agree that if taxpayer dollars are going to be spent on 
research, it is incumbent upon the scientist to do the research well, 
ethically, responsibly, and that it be relevant. But I do not believe 
it is the place of either side of this aisle to single out particular 
studies, as has been done in this case, and presume that

[[Page 11096]]

with a 5-minute examination we know better than peer reviewers who have 
the degrees in the relevant fields and have spent years studying them 
and have evaluated them. That is a dangerous precedent to set, and I 
would urge strongly opposition to this amendment and a similar one 
which will emerge shortly for the sake of our soldiers.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  These are always very difficult questions, and I have learned long 
ago never to judge the research by the title of the proposal. These are 
complex issues, and I don't know if the gentleman was here earlier when 
I spoke about the rate of return on research at the National Science 
Foundation. The best estimate is that the rate of return is a minimum 
of 20 percent and a maximum 400 percent on individual research 
projects.

                              {time}  2030

  Now, I challenge anyone in this Chamber to find investments that will 
year after year give you that rate of return on the investment.
  Another point I would like to make is, as I said, you can't always 
judge the full proposal by the title. This was evident a few years ago 
when we went through exactly the same charade when discussing the 
National Science Foundation budget. Some of my colleagues came down to 
the floor to amend the NSF appropriations bill, and one offered an 
amendment to remove grants for the study of ATM. This person gave a 
magnificent speech why we should not spend money at the National 
Science Foundation or the Department of Energy to study ATM. His 
argument was, let the banking industry do the research on ATMs. What he 
didn't know is that the proposal was not on automatic teller machines 
but the proposal was on studying asynchronous transfer modes, which 
involves the way computers talk to each other. This research led to a 
substantial change in the speed at which computers were able to talk to 
each other. This is a good example of why it is dangerous to just look 
at titles and make a judgment.
  I would also pick up on the comment of Mr. Baird about cultural 
studies. I think one of the basic problems in Iraq, and I have told 
this to people in the White House, is that there were not enough people 
in the White House, perhaps even in the State Department, who 
understood the culture of the countries we were dealing with, and we 
failed to realize what would happen once we moved into that country. A 
good NSF-funded study beforehand would have been invaluable in 
determining what would happen.
  Another example: a few years ago there was a grant on game theory. 
Once again, one of our colleagues rushed to the floor and said we have 
to eliminate funding for that. In fact, game theory is extremely useful 
in calculating the operation of nuclear reactors.
  So I urge defeat of this amendment. It is very easy to sit on the 
House floor and pontificate about these issues. But if we are going to 
cut the budget, there are much more fertile fields in which to cut. Why 
would we cut the one agency that gives us a guaranteed rate of return 
on our investment when there are many other areas we can cut where we 
are getting little or no payback at all?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I appreciate the comments of my good friend from Michigan, and I 
appreciate the comments of my fellow colleague from Washington. And I 
have been, as a physician, a strong supporter of the National Science 
Foundation. I believe strongly that, in fact, they need more money, not 
less. I would argue that we need to prioritize appropriately in our 
Federal budget and provide much greater resources in the National 
Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health and the CDC 
and others that ultimately work and derive huge benefit to our entire 
society and, in fact, to the world.
  But I commend my good friend from California for bringing this 
amendment forward because, although I may not have pulled out a couple 
of the items that he notes, for the life of me, I have a difficult time 
understanding and appreciating why on earth it would make any sense, 
and I would ask my good friend from Washington can you fathom how 
studying bison hunting on the Late Prehistoric Great Plains might have 
some effect on contemporary society that would make a difference with 
the compelling argument that you made regarding the study of cross-
cultural emotions?
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I thank very much the gentleman for 
yielding. And I would just caution I wouldn't state ``for the life of 
me'' on something that I hadn't studied very well no matter how obvious 
it may look.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I would be happy to reclaim my time or I would 
be happy to have you answer the question, one or the other.
  Mr. BAIRD. I could answer the question. I am just giving you the 
caveat about staking your life on things.
  Here is the issue: I don't think we want to say that we should never 
study the history of things. It is the perspective of this gentleman 
that we should not study history. And particularly, when you look at 
bison, I am not an expert in this, but to pretend to be so would be a 
mistake. To pretend to be so on your side or on my side would be a 
mistake. The authors of this study have contended that biologists and 
social scientists have tried to look at how humans make decisions to 
maximize and minimize risks in different environmental conditions. As 
you face different food supply systems, how do you deal with that? And 
that is part of the point here. How did people who live on the plains 
look at where they were going to harvest bison?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would 
suggest candidly that it was a valiant attempt. It was truly a valiant 
attempt, and I appreciate the attempt, to make a justification for 
bison hunting on the Late Prehistoric Great Plains. I would also 
suggest that the sexual politics of waste in Dakar, Senegal is a 
questionable study.
  So I commend my good friend from California, and I would be happy to 
yield to him.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Georgia for yielding.
  I appreciate the academic arguments, and I understand them. I am a 
history buff myself. I love this stuff. I might actually love this 
report, might enjoy reading it, might find it fascinating. That's not 
the point. The point is do we want to spend taxpayer funds on this?
  The United States taxpayer cannot fund every bit of academic research 
for every university, for everything that every professor wants to do 
across this country. We can't do that. The question before us is, are 
these the sorts of things we do want to spend taxpayer money on? I 
would suggest that they are not, and that is why I would suggest that 
to vote against this amendment is to say that you believe that taxpayer 
money should be spent on these specific items. That is the question 
before us. Not whether it is interesting. I am a Civil War buff. I love 
all kinds of interesting stuff about that, but I don't think the 
taxpayer ought to pay for research into it.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentleman for his comments, and I would concur. I think that there are 
many things that are exciting and interesting to study, whether or not 
they ought to be priorities at this point, and again, I would point to 
the bison hunting on the Late Prehistoric Great Plains.
  And if my good friend from Michigan would care to make a comment, I 
would be pleased to yield.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I just want to respond to the statement that we can't fund every 
proposal that comes along, and that is absolutely true. The National 
Science Foundation funds a small fraction of the proposals that come 
through, and

[[Page 11097]]

that is why we are beginning to slip as a Nation compared to other 
nations, because we are simply not, as a Congress, providing sufficient 
funds for the National Science Foundation. And I forget the current 
figure, but I think it is in the neighborhood of 20 percent of the 
grant applications are being funded; 80 percent are not being funded. 
It's a tough business, and these are all peer-reviewed grants. I cannot 
defend them individually without looking at them. As I say, you can't 
judge a proposal or a grant by its cover.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I yield to the gentleman 
from Washington.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for 
yielding.
  The challenge here, my friends, is you asked, I think, a question 
that is just improperly placed. Neither of us is trained in these 
areas. You are challenging a fundamental tenet of how we do National 
Science Foundation research. If you truly believe that the most cost-
effective use of this body's time, and that we are qualified to use our 
time in that fashion, is to, one by one by one, review National Science 
Foundation grants for our considered and qualified judgment of the 
appropriateness of those grants, it seems to me that that is a bit of a 
stretch. It seems to me that you are really making a political 
statement.
  If the political statement you want to make is we should spend the 
taxpayers' dollars wisely, I, 100 percent, agree. You may not know it, 
and probably don't, that we are working with the National Science 
Foundation to establish a letter actually that scientists that receive 
public grants would have to sign saying they understand the money came 
from the taxpayers, they are committed to doing research that is well 
designed and ethically high quality and that is relevant.
  The problem for us, in this brief time we have here and lacking 
expertise in the field, is it is really presumptuous of us on either 
side to say I can either attack or defend. I would yield time to either 
of you if you want to tell us what your personal qualifications are in 
the area of expertise of any of these studies, and I will hold you to 
it. What personal qualifications do you have in the broad area of this 
study to speak to that study?
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. We are qualified by virtue of the fact 
that we have been elected by people in our districts to be stewards of 
their money. As I said, this is not a question of whether or not these 
things have academic merit within a field of academics. It is a 
question of whether they are worthy of spending taxpayer money in that 
area. I think they are not.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I yield to 
the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. BAIRD. Let me just share with the gentleman the dangerous path 
you are on. There was a study some time back dealing with the sex life 
of the screw worm, perhaps aptly noted. The sex life of the screw worm, 
that would be pretty tempting to come to the floor and say, by God, why 
are we spending taxpayer dollars studying the sex life of screw worms? 
The reason being that that research saved the cattle industry millions 
of dollars by eliminating a parasite that deposited eggs in the 
placenta of newborn cows.
  We don't have the knowledge. We are indeed stewards of the taxpayers' 
money, which is why we created the National Science Foundation, why we 
are very careful about designating how the peer-review process works, 
and, quite frankly, why we shouldn't mess with that peer-review 
process. If we truly want to be stewards of the taxpayers' money, which 
I believe all of us want to be, then our best approach is to delegate 
some of the decision making about where some of that money is spent to 
those who best know the realm in which the research is spent. It is 
precisely because I believe in the task of being a steward of the 
taxpayer dollars that I oppose the general purpose of the amendment.
  I understand you are trying to save money. I just don't think our 
best way to do so is by micromanaging either this or most of the other 
foundations.
  And I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Just a couple of points and then I will yield.
  I agree with the gentleman that in some respects, perhaps, this body 
should not be engaged in micromanaging various aspects of the Federal 
Government where we do not have expertise.
  Earlier today, and in just the past week, we had a complete debate on 
that subject of whether this body, all 535 Members, were in appropriate 
position to micromanage the war, and I think some of us thought that we 
were not in the best position but that we should have, just as you are 
suggesting here, the trained professionals, the experts, the people on 
the field who are engaged in this activity on a daily basis make those 
decisions.
  So I would agree with the gentleman there. And if we were to have 
consistency, then we should not be engaged in that matter and we should 
not be engaged in this case.
  Let me make my second point and that is this: It is not incumbent 
upon the gentleman from California to be the expert in these areas that 
he is raising questions about. The underlying bill is not the gentleman 
from California's bill. It is the majority party's bill. It is your 
bill. You are coming to the floor making the case, or I should say the 
other side of the aisle, as I am speaking to the Chair, making the case 
that we should be spending all this money on these programs. So it is 
incumbent upon the offerer of the underlying legislation to make the 
case why we should be doing it and have the information why each one of 
these is justified so that when either the gentleman from California or 
Georgia raises the legitimate question, the same question that we are 
going to get when we go back to our constituents and are asked why did 
we vote on it, he should be making the justification for that.
  With that, I will yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New 
Jersey for his comments. And he is making a very apt point.
  And I appreciate the comments of my good friend from Washington, who 
said, and I think it got down correctly, ``We are neither trained nor 
have expertise in this area.'' And you are absolutely right. But 
consistency is a wonderful thing and inconsistency is a challenge.

                              {time}  2045

  I would suggest that none of us are pure in this area, but my good 
friend talks about we ought to delegate decisionmaking to authorities 
who have expertise, and we should. As a physician, I am compelled and 
have strong affinity for all of the advocacy groups that come to my 
office, as I know they come to yours, and advocate on behalf of 
specific diseases. Most recently this week, the folks who have suffered 
under the scourge of breast cancer have come, and they are asking for 
more resources. And I always suggest to them that it is appropriate for 
those decisions to be made by individuals at the National Science 
Foundation, at the CDC, at the National Institutes of Health. But, in 
fact, what my good friend from Washington does all the time, in his 
capacity in Congress, is to determine exactly what that line item ought 
to be from an appropriations standpoint.
  As a physician, the medical profession has suffered under the 
decisions that have been made in this Chamber and in the Chamber on the 
other side of this building because individuals thought they had 
greater expertise in the area of health care. And as my good friend 
from New Jersey clearly stated, and appropriately stated, that just 
this week we've been dealing with folks who believe they have greater 
expertise in the area of military competence and battles than our 
generals on the ground.

[[Page 11098]]

  So I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that my good friend from Washington 
is absolutely correct, that we ought to delegate in certain instances, 
but we ought to also utilize the prerogative that we have and the 
responsibility that we have as representatives in this body, 
representatives of our districts, and make certain that we are good 
stewards of the taxpayers' money.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman 
from Michigan.
  Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  First of all, I'll make a deal with you; I won't make any judgments 
about medical research if you don't make judgments about NSF research.
  The point of this really is that you cannot predict what will result 
from the research; that is the idea behind basic research.
  Years ago when I was a graduate student at Berkeley, we were spending 
tremendous amounts of money to examine the behavior of elementary 
particles, protons, neutrons, mesons, and so on. And no one, even in 
the scientific community, could ever imagine any practical use for 
that. But later on the results from doing that research led to the 
development of a CAT scanner and the MRI. Now, who would ever have 
thought that elementary particle physics would lead to major findings 
in medicine which every doctor relies upon today?
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I 
yield to my good friend and colleague from Washington State (Mr. 
Baird).
  Mr. BAIRD. I thank the gentleman from California. Just a couple of 
brief comments, and it's getting late, so we don't want to carry this 
forever.
  I would suggest that we all agree that consistency is a very 
dangerous thing. If the gentleman talks about being consistent, I would 
ask the gentleman why they chose not to micromanage the vast 
expenditures of dollars, not even to have oversight hearings of the 
vast expenditure of dollars on the war.
  If you really want to save the taxpayer dollars, we are burning $2.5 
billion a week in Iraq. This entire bill is $21 billion over 3 years. 
We're talking about 3 full years to fund the basic scientific research 
of this entire Nation, from mathematics to physics to chemistry to 
social sciences. That's about 6 or 7 weeks or so of what you spend in 
Iraq. And yet when it came to oversight of the expenditures in Iraq, 
the majority, then-majority party was then just virtually silent. If 
you really want to save the taxpayers' money, and I do, you could have 
looked at that.
  But let me suggest what the gentleman from New Jersey misrepresents. 
And I asked earlier if any folks on the other side were qualified to 
study this. The gentleman from New Jersey just doesn't seem to 
understand how this legislation works. He completely misrepresented 
when he said that it is incumbent upon the majority and the chairman 
who is bringing this forward to defend these studies. Sir, this bill 
does not authorize specific studies. That is not how the authorizing 
language for the National Science Foundation works. It would be 
ludicrous, and you should know that; and if you don't know it, you are 
not qualified to speak to this. But it would be ludicrous to suggest 
that when you authorize a foundation, that you are authorizing every 
single specific study or that you know what all those specific studies 
are. That's not how the National Science Foundation works. That's not 
how we authorize it. That's not how this bill functions. And it's 
indeed not how many, many of the authorizing bills function here. So to 
suggest that, to bring forward a broad authorization bill that gives 
responsibility to a foundation, one has to justify every single study 
is to misrepresent how this legislation works. And that's the problem. 
I think the gentleman either misunderstands or misrepresents how the 
legislation works.
  I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Andrews). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


         Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Campbell of California

  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Campbell of California:
       At the end of section 3, add the following new subsection:
       (h) Reduction.--Each of the amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated or made available under this section shall be 
     reduced by 1 percent.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, my colleague from 
Washington mentioned that he didn't think this last amendment that I 
proposed was the correct way to save money, so perhaps this is the more 
correct way; maybe this is something that he would find more to his 
liking.
  H.R. 1867, this bill before us, would increase spending for the 
National Science Foundation by 9.9 percent in the first year, 7.4 
percent in the second year and 7.3 percent in the third year, for an 
increase of over 25 percent over a 3-year period. Now, Mr. Chairman, 
that is an amount, and I, too, am someone who has sympathy for some of 
the things that the National Science Foundation does. However, even 
over the last few years where we have had very large percentage 
increases in our revenues to the Federal Government, they haven't been 
as large as this over the last 3-year period. In fact, in the next 3-
year period, any of the prognosticators, whether it be the Office of 
Management and Budget or any of the other prognosticators, are not 
estimating that we will have a 25 percent increase in revenue over the 
next 3 years. So therefore, this proposes to increase spending at a 
rate greater than revenue is projected to increase over the next 3 
years.
  This amendment would simply reduce the amount of this increase by 1 
percent per year. So instead of increasing by 10 percent the first 
year, it would increase by only 9; instead of increasing by 7.4 
percent, the second year would increase by 6.4 percent; and 7.3 
percent, it would increase by 6.3 percent in the third year. These are 
still large annual increases, larger than most taxpayers at home are 
likely to see the increases in their incomes, in their salaries, in 
their wages.
  So this is just a small reduction. It does not deal with, as the 
gentleman from Washington mentioned, it does not specifically say what, 
it leaves that issue open. So, therefore, it does not interfere with 
the selection of these various proposals and research things that the 
gentleman from Washington just supported in the last amendment.
  So with that, Mr. Chairman, I would ask for an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, here's the problem with what the gentleman is 
proposing, however well-intentioned it may be. And I am deeply 
concerned; as the gentlemen know, I serve on the Budget Committee with 
some of the gentlemen who are speaking, and we are all concerned about 
the long-term deficit picture for this country. However, if you cut 
investments in scientific research and scientific education, in the 
long run you will increase the deficit of this country, and you will 
decrease our national security, our national health care and our 
national and international competitiveness. That is why this is a 
mistake.
  And don't just take my word for it. The National Academies of 
Science, in Rising Above the Gathering Storm, a 2005 publication, 
called for more than a 10 percent increase; the U.S. Commission on 
National Security, the Hart-Rudman report, a similar level of increase; 
the President's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology, in their 
publication, Assessing the U.S.

[[Page 11099]]

R&D Investment in 2003; a coalition of 15 industry associations, in the 
publication Tapping America's Potential, in 2005; the Council on 
Competitiveness in their publication, Innovate America.
  This is not just a Democratic proposal or Republican proposal. I 
would remind the gentleman that this bill passed unanimously out of 
committee with bipartisan support.
  I would also encourage you to ask your faculty administrators, ask 
your high technology industries, do you think this country is spending 
sufficient quantities on fundamental basic research and investment such 
as that funded by National Science Foundation? And do you think we are 
doing enough to keep our young people educated in science and math in 
ways such as supported by this legislation? I guarantee you most of 
them would say no. You would, I think, by this cutting, with due 
respect, significantly be impairing, and it sounds like a small 
measure, but remember, we are already falling behind in a number of 
areas in science and math, not only in the education, but in the 
applied fields.
  This is consistent with President Bush's own administration request 
of a 7 percent per year increase. Again, this is a bipartisan approach, 
not a Democratic or Republican approach. The President has called for 
this. And again, as Dr. Ehlers said so eloquently earlier, our return 
on investment from research is profound. And when you cut that 
investment, I think you're cutting that return on investment.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I will try to be brief. We have beat this subject to death, but I 
find it ironic that we talk about cutting the funding of the one agency 
that returns more on its money than any other agency does.
  If we're talking about cutting the NSF by 1 percent, we should cut 
everything in the budget by 1 percent. And I might even vote for that 
if you are willing to cut defense by 1 percent; Cut every department, 
cut Social Security by 1 percent, and so on down the line. Then you 
might have something that would be worth doing. But to attack something 
that actually benefits this Nation, increases our health and wealth, 
and is allowing us to at least try to keep up with what other nations 
are doing, is utterly unrealistic.
  I would point out, and I can show you graphs indicating that we are 
falling far behind other nations. We occupied the premier spot in 
research for a number of years. But now South Korea, as an example, is 
very rapidly getting very close to what we are spending on research as 
a percentage of GDP. I expect them to pass us in a few years.
  It is incredible to me that we are supposed to be the brightest, most 
powerful Nation in the world, and yet we are losing ground compared to 
nations such as South Korea. If we are serious about competing with 
other countries, we absolutely have to keep investing our money in 
research, whether it's the National Science Foundation or whether it is 
the Department of Energy or the National Institutes of Health.
  In addition to that, I would mention that the National Science 
Foundation is just about the lowest-cost research institution. We spend 
a lot less money in the National Science Foundation than we do in the 
Department of Energy, than we do in National Institutes of Health or 
that we do on NASA. One of the lowest costs with the highest rate of 
return, I don't see any reason in the world to cut the NSF.
  Mr. Chairman, I will yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Just a short clarification, that this 
amendment does not propose a cut in the funding, it proposes to very 
slightly reduce the rate of growth from what was proposed. That is my 
only clarification.
  Mr. EHLERS. I thank you for the clarification.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I 
yield to my good friend from Washington State (Mr. Baird).
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I want to echo what 
the distinguished ranking member said.
  The following countries are increasing their investment in basic 
research faster than this legislation would authorize, and they've 
already put the money up front. Listen to these countries and see if 
you think it is wise for our Nation to reduce its investment even 
further, and further fall behind: China, Taiwan, European Union, South 
Korea, Singapore and others. Do we seriously want to further reduce our 
investment in basic research if we want to keep our Nation competitive? 
I submit we don't, and I would urge defeat of this amendment.
  I thank the gentleman.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  2100


         Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey

  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey:
       At the end of section 3, add the following new subsection:
       (h) Reduction.--Each of the amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated or made available under this section shall be 
     reduced by 0.5 percent.

  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I, too, echo the words of my 
colleagues who are in support of the overall funding of the National 
Science Foundation, and I offer this amendment to H.R. 1867, which I 
hope will provide incentives for the NSF to identify waste and any 
abuse within the Agency, but also, very importantly, to help identify 
those programs which are either underperforming or simply just not 
working.
  I believe this legislation will help be a model of fiscal 
responsibility. It is similar to the legislation we just heard from in 
two respects. H.R. 1867 authorizes the National Science Foundation to 
increase their spending, which goes to the point of the gentleman from 
Michigan was saying before, by 7 percent, and again in 2009 and 2010.
  The point we must make here, though, is inflation has remained 
constant during this same time period at around 3 percent. So when we 
purport to be so concerned about the taxpayers' dollars and the debt we 
are leaving our children, which I just heard from the gentleman from 
the other side of the aisle previously, how can we justify programmic 
increases for research that are actually more than twice the rate of 
inflation?
  As I referenced before, when I go back to my constituents back at 
home in town hall meetings and the like, they are not seeing 7 percent 
increases in their wages and salaries. They are not seeing a doubling 
of their incomes and their family household incomes. They may be seeing 
that as far as their expenses are concerned. They are seeing all other 
sorts of increases in spending, such as gasoline prices and the like 
that they have to put up with, but they are not seeing the increases in 
income and expenditures that we are seeing in this bill.
  I will comment on one comment that the gentleman from the other side 
of the aisle made before as far as being consistent. I think we heard 
the American public on this past election day. The American public is 
concerned about overspending by Congress. They want us to prioritize 
where our dollars go. They want to make sure that we are spending every 
dime efficiently and appropriately.
  I have yet, however, to hear one suggestion from the other side of 
the aisle, either here on the floor or on the Budget Committee, on 
which I serve with some of the gentleman on the other side of the 
aisle, as to where we with can make some of those cuts. Instead, what 
we are seeing is a continual increase in spending.

[[Page 11100]]

  Another point to make as well: Time after time our constituents come 
to our office quoting the discrepancy between authorization levels and 
appropriation levels. It is my hope that instead of having to 
disappoint them once again, that we set realistic authorization levels 
that may actually be realistic to the appropriation levels that come 
down the line. Let's be realistic, both on what we can do for our 
constituents and also what the appropriators may be doing with this 
bill later on.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, because it is 
our duty simply as stewards of our constituents' money, the taxpayers' 
dollars, as we step forward to make an honest assessment of what we can 
afford and should afford the American taxpayer.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, we have been over the basics. Let me just reiterate, 
this proposal for the increase in the National Science Foundation is 
thoroughly consistent with President Bush's own agenda. The 
competitiveness initiative calls for these kinds of increases. That is 
point one.
  Point two: If we hope to maintain our competitiveness, if you look at 
the proportion of our economy today that is the direct result, and Dr. 
Ehlers illustrated a number of examples, but the direct result of 
research and inventions that have come out of funding by the National 
Science Foundation, a tremendous amount of our economic prosperity 
today came from those investigations.
  As Dr. Ehlers so eloquently said, we don't know, ``we'' generally, 
not just we in the Congress, but especially we in the Congress, don't 
necessarily know which particular investigation, which particular 
study, is going to yield those profound results. But some will.
  I will tell you, I just spoke to a scientist in my district last week 
and he said to me, Congressman, the pipeline of U.S. scientists is 
drying up. You just really have to understand this. The pipeline of 
U.S.-based scientists is drying up, because the research funding is not 
adequate to meet the demand.
  What is happening is many, many young researchers are either not 
entering the field or are dropping out of the field or abandoning 
potentially promising careers, promising not just for them, but for our 
society.
  The hit rate, if you are a young researcher applying for a grant 
through NSF, your hit rate is low. You are going to spend a tremendous 
amount of effort applying for a grant, trying to further your research 
agenda, and your hit rate is going to be significantly low. That is 
demoralizing. It blocks important avenues of research that might yield 
promising results.
  And when we make these cuts, it is easy for us. I agree that we have 
got a huge fiscal problem. But, again, I will tell you that if you look 
at the long-term drivers of the fiscal problems this country faces, 
nobody says it is that vast waste at the National Science Foundation 
that is driving this country into debt. That is not what they say. They 
say it is a combination of revenue, it is a combination of entitlement 
programs, it is a combination of defense. I agree we ought to debate 
those, but not on the back of the National Science Foundation, for 
goodness sake.
  So I would urge defeat of this amendment for the same reasons I urged 
defeat previously.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the underlying bill, H.R. 1867, and 
rise to express my appreciation and thank the Science Committee for the 
bipartisan effort that they have always engaged in, and frankly, want, 
to thank them for the opportunity that I have had to serve on that 
committee for a number of years.
  Usually we rise and say with great reluctance, I rise to oppose the 
amendment. I might say with great vigor I rise to oppose the amendment. 
Because as I served on the Science Committee for a number of years, I 
used to always start the hearings with the idea that science is the 
work of the 21st century, and certainly the National Science Foundation 
sets the framework for encouraging research and innovativeness.
  I can't imagine that the distinguished gentleman who has offered this 
amendment would venture to argue with me, and I cite just a few 
examples that I think most of my colleagues and most of America frankly 
understand how our lives have been changed by simply these innovations. 
Of course, some of them were by private ingenuity and private concepts 
and funding possibly, but that was an America of yesteryear.
  But where would we be without the Wright Brothers and the airplane? 
Where would we be without Thomas Edison and electricity and the light 
bulb? Even though as we move into the 21st century, we want to be 
protectors of the environment and certainly want to be 
conservationists, look how that has changed our lives. And what about 
the Internet, interestingly enough, one of the success stories of DOD 
research.
  The most important part of it is the work that was created, the work 
that was created by these inventions and by the opportunities to allow 
our imagination to generate a better quality of life for Americans.
  This bill, H.R. 1867, which, as I said, I enthusiastically support, 
creates work for the 21st century. It emphasizes the underserved. It 
encourages research to be done by Historically Black Colleges and 
Historically Hispanic Serving Institutions, and as well, to encourage 
diversity in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.
  There is an important provision that mentions, of course, the intent 
of this particular legislation to determine how different minority 
groups are impacted by this funding, which is whether or not we can 
increase the number of underrepresented minorities in the science, 
technology, engineering and mathematics fields, and how we can increase 
women in these fields. For the time I have worked on the Science 
Committee as a former member of the committee, these were issues that 
we worked on together.
  What the gentleman is trying to achieve with this across-the-board 
cut is amazing to me, because what he is actually saying to the world 
and to America is we are second rate. We don't believe in investing in 
the next generation of research. We don't believe in uplifting those 
who are interested in these disciplines to give them merit and worth.
  I would ask the gentleman, though I am sure his rebuttal will be that 
we don't pay those dollars. I don't know if we do. What is a high 
school football or basketball coach worth? What is a college football, 
basketball or any other sport's coach worth? Can we not, as a Nation, 
make a commitment to the research community by affirming their 
importance?
  Dr. Ehlers and Dr. Baird have worked together affirming the 
importance of research, and not closing the door of this important 
responsibility that we have.
  I am fearful, Mr. Chairman, of where this Nation is headed when we 
pull back on the ability of our Nation to invest in the 21st century 
technology. NASA represents that, the NASA Space Station represents 
that, the centers represent that, the laboratories represent that.
  We want to encourage this funneling, this pathway, if you will, this 
farm team of researchers, and this particular legislation does that by 
increased funding, by highlighting the underserved, and I believe doing 
a lot more.
  Let me conclude by saying I had intended to offer amendment to ensure 
that Historically Black Colleges and Hispanic Serving Institutions 
would be a viable part of the legislation. As I have reviewed it, I 
know that the intent is there, and that we will look forward to working 
with the members of the committee and working with this Congress to 
make sure that the United States is creating work for the 21st century.
  Oppose the amendment and support the bill for the betterment of 
America.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1867, the National 
Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007. This bill is another 
important component of the new Democratic

[[Page 11101]]

majority's Innovation Agenda, which is designed to make our Nation more 
able to compete successfully in the global economy.
  Mr. Chairman, to ensure that the United States will continue to have 
a workforce ready for global competition, it is essential that we make 
a sustained commitment to federal research and development. The 
National Science Foundation is crucial to these goals, providing vital 
support to our Nation's science and engineering projects and 
researchers.
  Created by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, the National 
Science Foundation, or NSF, is tasked with the broad mission of 
supporting science and engineering. This agency provides funding for 
basic research across many disciplines, and offers support for merit 
awards, state-of-the-art tools, and instrumentation and facilities. The 
majority of the research supported by the NSF is conducted at U.S. 
colleges and universities.
  This bill reaffirms our commitment to scientific excellence by 
reauthorizing the National Science Foundation (NSF) for three years and 
providing nearly $21 billion in funding for fiscal years 2008-2010. 
This legislation appropriates specific funding for each of the NSF's 
major accounts: research and related activities, education and human 
resources, major research equipment and facilities construction, agency 
operations and award management, the National Science Board, and the 
Office of the Inspector General. A number of specific programs within 
the science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) educational 
categories are singled out as the recipients of funding. Additionally, 
specific funding is designated for Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) 
awards. By raising the cap for these awards, this bill allows the NSF 
to support a wider range of state-of-the-art research tools.
  This bill contains many other important provisions. It requires an 
evaluation of NSF's role in supporting interdisciplinary research, and 
encourages university and industry partnerships. It encourages young 
investigators through a new grant program, and it requires a National 
Academy of Sciences report on barriers to and strategies for increasing 
the participation of underrepresented minorities in STEM fields.
  The NSF ensures a continued national supply of scientific and 
engineering personnel, while promoting basic research and education 
across a wide array of scientific and technological disciplines. In the 
interest of both economic prosperity and military capability, the 
United States must continue producing a workforce knowledgeable to 
maintain technological competitiveness. If we are to do this, this 
Congress must continue funding and strengthening science and 
mathematics education. Supporting this bill is an important step, and I 
strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I know my good friend from Texas did not intend to, but 
I would respectfully request the Chair make certain that he calls into 
order individuals who impugn the motive of other Members of this body. 
I think it is important that we not do that in this Chamber.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Let me be the first, because I believe we are all distinguished 
gentlepersons, gentleladies and gentlemen, say that my remarks were to 
the value of this bill and to my philosophical disagreement with the 
author of this amendment, and certainly recognize that he is proud of 
America and all of the inventiveness that she has, and therefore any 
intent that might have been perceived by my words were only to glorify 
this bill and to celebrate our researchers and our science in this 
country.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate 
the gentlelady's comments, and I would just respectfully suggest it 
might be appropriate to review the words that were spoken and reflect 
upon them.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also suggest candidly that my recollection, I 
am not absolutely certain, but my recollection is that the Wright 
Brothers and Thomas Edison had no government subsidy, and the 
remarkable inventions that they came up with were without the benefit 
of government subsidy. That is not to say that government subsidy isn't 
appropriate for certain occasions, but I would suggest that those 
individuals had remarkable accomplishments without the kind of support 
that we are discussing today.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield to my good friend from New 
Jersey, the sponsor of the amendment.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Georgia.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe the other side of the aisle has 
mischaracterized what this amendment does when they speak of cuts and 
pullbacks from science and the Foundation. Nothing of the kind is in 
this amendment. Instead, we will still be increasing spending this year 
and next year and next year and next year up to $20.87 billion for 
these appropriated expenditures on the National Science Foundation, 
instead of $20.97 billion.
  I am very much concerned about education and science and our 
research. Let me just add, I am also concerned about the education of 
our youth. My constituents are just as concerned about educating their 
kids and being able to afford to send their kids to college and how do 
they pay for that? My constituents are concerned about the health care 
and the medical expenditures for their families and how do they pay for 
that? My constituents are concerned about the housing for their family 
and loved ones, and how do they pay for that?
  They are not seeing a 7 percent increase in their wages and salaries, 
even though each and every one of those things are just as vitally 
important to them as it is that we spend money on overall Science 
Foundation research in the United States of America.

                              {time}  2115

  This amendment would not cut spending by a dime. This amendment would 
simply limit the growth rate from 7 percent down to 6.5 percent. The 
last amendment was seeing it go down from 7 percent to 6 percent. This 
would be even less, from 7 to 6.5 percent. You would still be seeing a 
growth year after year after year. The NSF would still be allowed to 
expend their dollars on those critical areas that my friend from 
Georgia and the Members on the other side of the aisle are so concerned 
about for the betterment of this country.
  I would implore the Members on the other side of the aisle that if we 
are to be consistent when we talk about the overall spending and 
revenue side for this Congress, that we stop doing what the other side 
of the aisle has done. They have only looked at the revenue side of the 
equation so far in the last 3 or 4 months, giving us the largest tax 
increase in America's history on the other hand, but have done 
absolutely nothing for the American public when it says how are we 
going to set priorities for the American public and what we spend money 
on, and how are we going to try to rein in spending for the American 
public as well. I think we need to do it on both sides.
  Finally, regarding what the gentleman from Michigan said, I agree 
with him. If we can do it across the board for all of the other 
programs, I am right in line with him, and I support him on that 
endeavor as well. Let's start here, and I will be the first one to 
cosponsor any of his amendments to do likewise, decreasing the overall 
increases of spending that this government has.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
  Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Just briefly, I want to comment on a comment made by my friend from 
New Jersey about health care, a very, very important issue. But the 
only way we are going to be able to offer better health care to 
everyone is by reducing the cost.
  One huge element of cost in health care is cancer treatment. Today at 
lunch I met with the latest seven Nobel Prize winners all of whom 
happen to be from America because we support this research.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I 
yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

[[Page 11102]]


  Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Just to continue, today the Science Committee had lunch with the 
latest Nobel Prize winners, all of whom are from America because we try 
very hard to provide funding for the research. They, I might point out, 
did the research a number of years ago. I hope we can continue to 
provide Nobel Prize winners by adequately funding the National Science 
Foundation and others.
  But in speaking to the gentleman who got the award in physiology and 
medicine, he talked about his discovery and the impact it is going to 
have on cancer treatment. That is very likely to cause a substantial 
reduction in the cost of the treatment of cancer using his approach.
  What does his approach depend on? That is the Human Genome Project 
which we started a number of years ago in NIH and were the first Nation 
to do that.
  It is always amazing to me how discoveries that we find in one area 
can have application, and no one, I think, dreamed that when we did the 
Human Genome Project that we might find the cure of cancer there rather 
than in medicine. So it is very important that we continue funding the 
fundamental basic research so we can continue to enjoy the fruits of 
their research.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Baird).
  Mr. BAIRD. I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I thank Mr. 
Ehlers for his comments.
  Very briefly, in 2002, 397 Members of this Congress, including 194 
Members of the then-majority party Republicans, voted to double, 
double, the National Science Foundation.
  For those members of your party who plan to vote against this bill or 
who plan to vote for this reduction in the authorized levels for this 
committee, I would just suggest you well may be voting against 
something that you voted for just a few years ago at much higher levels 
and that the President signed into law. The then-majority voted to 
double the budget. The President signed it into law at much higher 
levels than what we are talking about today.
  In the last Presidential election, somebody ran around with a flip-
flop guy chasing Mr. Kerry. If you do this, the flip-flop guy might be 
outside your door.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
will be postponed.


         Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey

  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey:
       At the end of section 3, add the following new subsection:
       (h) Limitation.--None of the funds authorized under this 
     section may be used for research related to--
       (1) the reproductive aging and symptom experience at 
     midlife among Bangladeshi Immigrants, Sedentees, and White 
     London Neighbors; and
       (2) the diet and social stratification in ancient Puerto 
     Rico.

  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, just beginning where the 
last comment on the last bill ended up, I appreciate the gentleman 
pointing out that this side did support a doubling of the NSF, and I 
was probably one of those who was there to support the increase; so no 
one, I think, can take the position that we are not uniformly as a body 
or as a party opposed to the general notion of increasing, making 
significant increases to applied research or general research, I should 
say, by the NSF.
  What we can ask, though, is after the last election, has the American 
voter spoken with regard to the overall growth in Federal spending in 
all areas, whether it is in science and health care, whether it is in 
the war, for veterans or other areas; should we not look at each one 
individually and decide some should go up, some should remain the same, 
and some should go up at a slightly different way? That is what we are 
suggesting in the last amendment, simply that they should go up at a 
slightly different arc than they are in the underlying bill, 6.5 
percent instead of 7 percent.
  In the amendment before us right now, we look to see what is the 
underlying mission of the NSF. If we look at their mission statement, 
we see it is: ``To promote the progress of science, advance the 
national health, prosperity and welfare and secure the national 
defense.''
  But during these tough fiscal times, both at the Federal level and at 
the family level, as I pointed out before, Congress must exercise good 
stewardship over every penny of taxpayers' dollars. This includes 
helping the NSF to focus on its priority projects.
  Just as the gentleman from Georgia indicated, he has been visited by 
a number of people from various groups dealing with health issues, so 
have I; people with serious health issues like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's 
and diabetes. They come and ask what are we doing and how are we 
prioritizing for their concerns within the NSF.
  The amendment before you simply says can we find more than a quarter 
million dollars to fund research on such programs as reproductive aging 
symptoms of midlife Bangladeshi immigrants, but not more funding for 
research projects which might bring progress and eventually cures for 
some of the serious illnesses we have already heard about on the floor?
  In addition, how can we justify research like the diet and social 
stratification of ancient cultures when here at home current medical 
research is so desperately needed?
  Now, I understand that the point has been already made that we do not 
specifically itemize in the authorization bills each one of these 
specific programs, but these are, as the gentleman knows, programs 
which have already been authorized in the past and are continuing under 
the law right now into 2007 and 2008.
  So doesn't it behoove us here in Congress to make a statement, to 
make a stand and say that at least in several of these areas we can 
make a position that our limited dollars should not be going to those 
areas, but instead we would make the position that they should be going 
for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes and cancer research and some 
other areas that we have previously spoken about?
  So I encourage my colleagues, do not only exercise good stewardship 
over the taxpayers' dollars, but in essence to also ensure that worthy 
projects receive the funding they deserve within that noble mission 
that I set forth at the beginning, ``To promote the progress of 
science, advance the national health, prosperity and welfare and secure 
the national defense.''
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from New Jersey for making 
precisely the case I have tried to make myself. The case I have tried 
to make myself is that it is not in the best purview of this body to 
intervene and micromanage specific studies.
  The reason I point that out is because the gentleman spoke about 
important health issues. One of the studies he seeks to eliminate 
funding for addresses an important health issue. Menopause is 
tremendously important to the women of this society. It is fine for two 
men to get up here and decide whether we want to fund menopause 
research; but I will tell you, every woman in this country is going to 
go through it, and they think menopause matters.
  One of the studies that the gentleman wants to reduce funding for is 
very important in terms of addressing the factors that influence how 
menopause develops. I would share with the gentleman, although my 
knowledge is

[[Page 11103]]

somewhat limited, I believe there are correlations between menopause 
and a number of the issues the gentleman mentioned like cancer and 
other factors.
  So if we believe we want to address those important matters, one of 
the very studies this gentleman is suggesting we eliminate funding for 
could very well address those very important issues. I would just urge 
you go back to your women constituents and suggest to them that you 
decided, based on your vast medical and anthropological expertise, and 
your vast understanding of women's health, that menopause did not merit 
research funding from the National Science Foundation.
  And you may try to pick the title and say what does that have to do 
with Bangladeshi immigrants, et cetera. It may have a lot to do because 
natural experiments in which one population and another population may 
be of the same age, different, but subject to different cultural or 
dietary or other factors, and thereby have different variations in how 
they manifest certain biological processes can often give us profound 
insights into disease processes and the development of natural rhythms.
  And for you or I to presume that we have the expertise to say that we 
don't think this study will do that because we know so much about 
menopause, sir, and I count myself among those ``sirs,'' I think is 
vastly presumptuous. Menopause is profoundly important to the women of 
this country. This study deals with menopause, and I am tremendously 
grateful to the gentleman for picking this study because in so doing, 
you have made the best possible case for not micromanaging this fine 
agency.


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. All Members are reminded to address their 
comments to the Chair.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the angst most recently demonstrated is curious in 
light of the events of recent history regarding what this House has 
dealt with over the past week or two or three, and a little longer 
history in light of what this House and what this Congress deals with 
over and over and over again; and that is not the kind of appropriate 
kind of decisionmaking that my good friend from Washington so 
passionately advocates here in this bill, which is to delegate 
appropriate decisionmaking to people who have the expertise and have 
the knowledge to determine where those resources ought be spent and 
where those decisions ought be made.
  Would that we as a Congress and we as a House use that same 
brilliance in our decisionmaking when we make decisions regarding 
health care. Again, as a physician, this Chamber makes incredible 
decisions that affect the very personal health care of individuals 
about which it has no knowledge whatsoever, and takes the 
decisionmaking authority from physicians and patients in an 
inappropriate way, I believe.
  We also this past week determined as a Chamber, the majority party 
has determined that they have greater knowledge about the specific 
military activities that ought to occur on the ground as it relates to 
our brave men and women who are fighting to defend our liberty and our 
freedom. However, the majority party apparently believes that it is 
appropriate for them to make specific decisions what our commanders 
ought to be doing on a day-to-day basis.
  So I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it would be appropriate to 
have some consistency in the arguments that are being brought to the 
floor here this evening regarding delegation of appropriate 
decisionmaking to those who have the expertise.
  With that, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, again, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding. The gentleman is a doctor and I am not going to ask him 
for his medical expertise because, as you say, that is not our role 
here to delve into these things but to simply raise the questions.
  I will tell you this, that when I come back to my constituents and 
they tell me about their health concerns, whether it is menopause or 
cancer or otherwise, their first concern is how are they going to 
address their own health needs, how are they going to address their 
health care costs and what are we doing here about it. Their second 
question is what research are we doing here at home for these areas.
  The study that you reference, reproductive aging and symptoms 
experienced at midlife among Bangladeshi immigrants, sedentees, and 
white London neighbors does not, of course, as the gentleman knows, 
look to those issues here at home, but rather elsewhere.
  My constituents will raise the question, is that the first priority 
or should that be the first priority of the NSF. I am not an expert, I 
am not a doctor like the gentleman, so I cannot suggest that that is 
the most important one, but my constituents will certainly raise that 
question for me, and my constituents will certainly be consistent, as 
the gentleman from Georgia says, and that we should make sure that 
those dollars are spent here on their own health concerns first.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate section 4.
  The text of section 4 is as follows:

     SEC. 4. CENTERS FOR RESEARCH ON LEARNING AND EDUCATION 
                   IMPROVEMENT.

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

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 4?
  The Clerk will designate section 5.
  The text of section 5 is as follows:

     SEC. 5. INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH.

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

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 5?
  The Clerk will designate section 6.
  The text of section 6 is as follows:

     SEC. 6. PILOT PROGRAM OF GRANTS FOR NEW INVESTIGATORS.

       (a) In General.--The Director shall carry out a pilot 
     program to award one-year grants to individuals to assist 
     them in improving research proposals that were previously 
     submitted to the Foundation but not selected for funding.
       (b) Use of Funds.--Grants awarded under this section shall 
     be used to enable an individual to resubmit an updated 
     research proposal for review by the Foundation through the 
     agency's competitive merit review process. Uses of funds made 
     available under this section may include the generation of 
     new data and the performance of additional analysis.
       (c) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section, an individual shall--
       (1) not have previously received funding as the principal 
     investigator of a research grant from the Foundation; and
       (2) have submitted a proposal to the Foundation, which may 
     include a proposal submitted to the Research in Undergraduate 
     Institutions program, that was rated very good or excellent

[[Page 11104]]

     under the Foundation's competitive merit review process.
       (d) Selection Process.--The Director shall make awards 
     under this section based on the advice of the program 
     officers of the Foundation.
       (e) Program Administration.--The Director may carry out 
     this section through the Small Grants for Exploratory 
     Research program.
       (f) National Science Board Review.--The Board shall conduct 
     a review and assessment of the pilot program under this 
     section, including the number of new investigators funded, 
     the distribution of awards by type of institution of higher 
     education, and the success rate upon resubmittal of proposals 
     by new investigators funded through this pilot program. Not 
     later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Board shall summarize its findings and any 
     recommendations regarding changes to or the continuation of 
     the pilot program in a report to the Committee on Science and 
     Technology of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the Committee on 
     Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate.


                  Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Flake:
       Strike section 6.

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I just have to say from the outset that I 
have been amazed, like the gentleman from Georgia who mentioned a while 
ago, you would think if you were listening to this debate at home that 
the only research, the only science research going on in this country 
is funded by government, and it is simply not the case, gratefully. In 
fact, just a fraction of the research going on in the scientific field 
is funded by government. The private sector funds it gratefully.
  And unfortunately, one can make the case and the case is often made 
persuasively that as we increase government funding in this area, it 
displaces private sector funding because companies can then rely on 
government rather than their own R&D budgets.
  There is also something called opportunity cost. Whenever you hear 
the word ``investment'' in terms of government funding, you have to be 
a little skeptical. You have to say what is the opportunity cost? If 
you had left this money in the private sector, would it have produced 
more? You will never know that. But we do know the private sector tends 
to do things a lot more efficiently than government does.
  Let me speak to this amendment. This amendment would strike a new 
pilot project created in this bill. Keep in mind, people will say we 
cannot cut this bill or whatever else. This is a new program that I am 
seeking to strike here.
  This pilot project would award one-year grants to individuals to 
assist them in improving research proposals that were previously 
submitted to the National Science Foundation but were not selected for 
funding. In other words, if you submit an application, it is not 
approved for funding, the government will give you money to improve the 
application so it might be approved next year.
  The man that comes on television, running around in this crazy suit, 
Matthew Lesko I think is his name, comes to mind here. Are we going to 
fund like Matthew Lesko? Are we simply saying, all right, here is more 
money to help you get government money? Are there not sufficient 
programs within the National Science Foundation that we should be 
funding, that we have extra money to actually fund people who did not 
get the grants to help them improve their proposals that they might get 
a grant next year?
  I understand the defense will say, or those defending these grants 
that this pilot project is intended to help younger scientists who may 
be losing out on NSF grants because they do not know how to prepare 
proposals compared to more seasoned researchers or scientists. The 
answer does not lie in more Federal dollars to help them prepare grant 
proposals. If there are problems in terms of more tenured scientists 
getting these proposals, then perhaps we ought to look at the 
application process and procedures and tweak those or change those 
rather than say let us spend money and take money out of the National 
Science Foundation budget and give it to people who were rejected in 
their funding.
  This is a tight budget environment. I need not remind the majority 
that we are in a deficit situation. I would support across-the-board 
cuts everywhere in government, but boy, to say that we have got to 
increase the budget here 25 percent over 3 years is a bit steep, and 
then to create a new program like this one and to say we are going to 
give money to those who are not getting the programs, and one more 
thing before I yield back.
  I have heard from the other side, those defending the current budget 
and arguing against proposals to actually cut specific programs, that 
we have a peer review process and that research grants should only be 
given out that way. I am glad to hear that because my guess is when we 
come 3 months from now or 2 months from now to the appropriations 
process, in the SSJC budget, there will be earmarks from that side of 
the aisle, from this side of the aisle, to fund specific research 
grants, some of whom were turned down during the peer review process. 
So this notion that you have got to have peer review and that we do not 
have the knowledge, I will confess that, but then why in the world are 
we earmarking like we are?
  The earmarks are specifically to say I know better than the folks at 
NSF or folks over here because I am going to give it to my university 
or somebody who may have lost out on a grant, and so the notion that, 
hey, you know, you guys do not know what you are talking about when you 
are trying to cut spending, leave it to the experts, we do not leave it 
to the experts. The Congress does not leave it to the experts. If we 
trusted the experts, we would not be earmarking like we are.
  But, again, back to the specific amendment, this is a new program, a 
new program to take money from the existing budget of NSF that we have 
all heard is so important that we have to have for research, and giving 
it to people who did not get their projects approved, did not get a 
contract, did not get research dollars to help them prepare research 
dollars.
  This reminds me actually of many of the earmarks that you will see in 
the given months. Many of those are given to people to prepare grants 
to receive more money.
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I rise in strong support of H.R. 1867, legislation to reauthorize the 
National Science Foundation, and of this amendment that will give 
Hispanic-serving institutions, what we refer to as HSIs, the support 
they need to prepare our next generation of scientists, engineers and 
mathematicians.
  I would like to thank my colleagues, Congressman Jerry McNerney of 
California, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, and 
Congressman Joe Crowley of New York for bringing this amendment 
forward. It will make a great difference.
  The McNerney-Giffords-Crowley amendment allows the National Science 
Foundation to establish a competitive, merit-based program to award 
grants to HSIs for science, technology, engineering and mathematics 
education. This program seeks to enhance the quality of undergraduate 
science, mathematics and engineering education and increase the 
retention and graduation rates for undergraduate students pursuing STEM 
degrees at 2-year and 4-year HSIs. The initiative will support 
curriculum and faculty development in STEM areas; stipends for 
undergraduate students participating in research; and funding for 
instrumentation purposes.
  HSIs are the gateways for post-secondary education for most Hispanic 
students. Despite having fewer resources than other institutions, HSIs 
are among the top producers of our new Hispanic STEM professionals. 
Yet, these vital institutions are often overlooked, or at best, seen as 
junior partners in our national research and education enterprise. This 
amendment helps give HSIs the attention they deserve.
  I applaud the leadership of Chairman Gordon, of Chairman Baird, 
Ranking Member Hall and Ranking Member

[[Page 11105]]

Ehlers for their bipartisan commitment to ensuring the United States 
remains competitive in science, technology engineering and mathematics, 
better known as the STEM fields.
  The Science and Technology Committee has acted with the sense of 
urgency that we should all share in order to put our Nation back on 
track to lead the world in the STEM fields. The National Science 
Foundation is central to developing our national capacity for research 
and innovation.
  I am particularly pleased that this bill emphasizes our need to 
develop our human capital in the STEM fields. I would also like to 
thank my colleague and friend Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson for 
her work in including an amendment to require strategic planning for 
the education and human resources mission of the foundation so that we 
fully develop our STEM talent across all fields and all communities, 
especially those that have been historically underrepresented.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment for HSIs strengthens that education and 
human resources mission.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the 
underlying bill, H.R. 1867.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Who seeks recognition on the Flake amendment?
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I greatly respect and admire the gentleman from Arizona, who I know 
is committed to trying to reduce the deficit, as am I, and we have 
worked on other areas on that, but let me just share a couple of things 
about this.
  First of all, the gentleman talked about private industry research, 
and he is right about that. There is a lot of private industry 
research. Let me share with the gentleman some of the private industry 
bodies that endorse this bill, and the list is very impressive. I have 
got it. I would be happy to share it. If it is such a bad bill or needs 
to be dramatically modified, these are the organizations that support 
it:
  Computing Research Association, National Defense Industrial 
Association, American Chemical Society, Business Roundtable, 
Information Technology Association of America, National Venture Capital 
Association, Semiconductor Industry Association, Software & Information 
Industry Association, TechNet, Technology CEO Council, Accenture, 
Advanced Micro Devices, Agilent, Apple, Applied Materials.
  I have only it four or five. I am just on the A's. I could go on.
  The point being, yes, private industry does fund a great deal of 
research. They recognize government has a very important role, and far 
from being deeply suspicious of that role, they profoundly endorse it.
  As for the gentleman's amendment per se, I share with the gentleman 
that much of this legislation develops from research conducted by the 
National Academy of Science presented in Rising Above the Gathering 
Storm, which the gentleman may or may not have read.
  One of the key challenges we face in our research enterprise is 
keeping young investigators in the pipeline. If you look at the data on 
when people are most productive, it does not correlate particularly 
well with when they get the most funding. There are a host of reasons 
for that.
  Part of the reason is it takes some time to learn how to do the 
grants, and what we are trying to do here is to say to people, just 
remember that only about 25 percent of grants are funded. So the mere 
fact you did not get funding the first time does not mean your 
application is a bad application at all. It does not mean we have said 
it is not worthy of funding. Quite the contrary.
  What it may well have said is it is a very good application, but 
given the competition and the constrained funding, in its current 
state, we will not choose it.
  What this bill does is basically say to the young investigator, we 
will give you some help in advancing your career so you can make a 
second run at this. This is supported by the National Science 
Foundation. Folks who have done this research, and I have written 
applications for grants, I am sure Dr. Ehlers has, it takes you a while 
to learn how to do it.
  Sometimes the young professors who are the very people who are 
teaching the undergraduate classes, trying to get their labs put up, 
they lack the resources. And on top of that, you need to understand the 
dynamics of the peer review process.
  Sometimes the more senior members, the people with the long 
established research credentials and careers are just going to have 
more access to research because the peer reviewers are going to say, 
look, it is a safe bet to bet on this guy or this woman, they have been 
around a long time. The unknown person, the new person who may hold the 
promise of tomorrow, has a comparative disadvantage.

                              {time}  2145

  So what we are trying to do is in a small way, a relatively small way 
with this program, redress the difference between the new 
investigators. We know what that's like. We have been relatively young 
Members, not so anymore here in the Congress. We have had the senior 
Members tell us where the bathroom was, to quit voting with our meal 
cards and stuff like that. Nobody threw us out. They get a second 
chance. But what I am saying, that's what this is about.
  I profoundly respect the gentleman. I hope he knows that. He is 
committed to try to reduce the deficit. This is not the way to do it. 
This program is actually a good program. It's by a host of scientists, 
a host of scientific bodies. I think we ought to defeat the gentleman's 
amendment, with respect, because I know his intent. In this case I 
think he would have an adverse effect on what we are trying to do with 
this legislation.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I appreciate the valiant effort on behalf of my friend from 
Washington in attempting to dissuade Members from voting against this 
amendment, which I think is well founded. I appreciate the gentleman 
from Arizona for offering it.
  I would remind the gentleman from Washington that one of the roles of 
our office, one of the roles of our office is to assist individuals 
with grant applications. So there are other resources which the Federal 
Government supplies for individuals who are searching to try to fill 
out their grant applications. We are happy to help.
  I would also suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman makes the 
point, appropriately, that only 25 percent of the grants are accepted. 
So why should we waste Federal dollars on teaching individuals who have 
other avenues to be able to determine how to fill out their grant 
application appropriately?
  Why should we waste precious Federal dollars that could go to, in 
fact, the kinds of cures that he is endeavoring to fund with the moneys 
that he is promoting? Why should we waste those Federal dollars in this 
kind of endeavor, which, I think, is frankly ill-founded and not 
needed.
  I am pleased to yield to my good friend from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  First, let me point out I have the utmost respect for my friend from 
Washington. We have worked together on many issues. First, he mentioned 
that the private sector groups are in support of this legislation and 
the National Science Foundation. I have no doubt. It doesn't surprise 
me at all. But I would submit that that's akin to the government saying 
we are in a position now to fund free lunches for everyone out there, 
and you can do it on the government's dime.
  I would say that virtually every company in America would say that's 
a great idea. Now we don't have to fund that. We don't have to 
subsidize it for our employees. We can keep the profits, invest them 
elsewhere. If private companies don't have to expend that money in 
their R&D budgets, they would like not to. But that was a point I made, 
that this often supplants money that would be invested in the private 
sector, probably more efficiently if overall government spending is any 
guide.
  To the amendment in specific, the gentleman from Georgia said it 
well. With all the high-priority items in the

[[Page 11106]]

National Science Foundation budget, to take money out of that and to 
give it to those who didn't present a successful proposal would seem to 
me not the highest-priority use of money.
  Remember, this is a new program. I am not cutting a program that 
exists. This is a new pilot project. I just don't think this is a road 
that we want to go down. I started to mention, before my time ran out 
before, we have seen this in other fields, in other earmark fields, 
where people are funding business consortiums. Many of the earmarks in 
this body go to business consortiums to help them draft grant proposals 
to get other earmarks or to get grants from government or to lobby to 
get earmarks. It's simply not a road that we want to go down as a 
Congress, I would submit.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman, and I commend him for 
his amendment.
  I am pleased to yield to my good friend from Michigan.
  Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  First, to the gentleman from Arizona, I totally agree with your 
comments about earmarks. I have fought hard here to keep this body and 
the other body from providing earmarks for scientific research, because 
all grants should go through the peer review process.
  I might also add parenthetically that when the gentleman from Arizona 
was on the antiearmark bandwagon a few years ago, I believe I voted 
with him more than most Members of the House, because I oppose earmarks 
in general, but particularly in scientific research.
  I would also comment that the fact that industry supports us is not 
indicative of the National Science Foundation doing industry's 
research. National Science Foundation does the basic research, the 
fundamental research, which has no apparent immediate use. Industry 
picks up on that and says, okay, let's see whether we can develop 
something out of that. In other words, industry does not do very much 
research, they do a lot of development. NSF does almost totally 
research and essentially no development. So it's a very good symbiotic 
relationship.
  As I mentioned earlier, before most of the people here were on the 
floor, the rate of return on our research money in the National Science 
Foundation has been incredible. Any accountant looking at this would 
say this is the best investment that the United States Government makes 
because it has great results in our economy.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, as it is getting 
rather late, I would ask unanimous consent that we limit debate on 
subsequent amendments to 10 minutes.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I object.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will designate section 7.
  The text of section 7 is as follows:

     SEC. 7. BROADER IMPACTS MERIT REVIEW CRITERION.

       (a) In General.--In evaluating research proposals under the 
     Foundation's broader impacts criterion, the Director shall 
     give special consideration to proposals that involve 
     partnerships between academic researchers and industrial 
     scientists and engineers that address research areas that 
     have been identified as having high importance for future 
     national economic competitiveness, such as nanotechnology.
       (b) Partnerships With Industry.--The Director shall 
     encourage research proposals from institutions of higher 
     education that involve partnerships with businesses and 
     organizations representing businesses in fields that have 
     been identified as having high importance for future national 
     economic competitiveness and that include input on the 
     research agenda from and cost-sharing by the industry 
     partners.
       (c) Report on Broader Impacts Criterion.--Not later than 1 
     year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director 
     shall transmit to Congress a report on the impact of the 
     broader impacts grant criterion used by the Foundation. The 
     report shall--
       (1) identify the criteria that each division and 
     directorate of the Foundation uses to evaluate the broader 
     impacts aspects of research proposals;
       (2) provide a breakdown of the types of activities by 
     division that awardees have proposed to carry out to meet the 
     broader impacts criterion;
       (3) provide any evaluations performed by the Foundation to 
     assess the degree to which the broader impacts aspects of 
     research proposals were carried out and how effective they 
     have been at meeting the goals described in the research 
     proposals;
       (4) describe what national goals, such as improving 
     undergraduate science, mathematics, and engineering 
     education, improving K-12 science and mathematics education, 
     promoting university-industry collaboration and technology 
     transfer, and broadening participation of underrepresented 
     groups, the broader impacts criterion is best suited to 
     promote; and
       (5) describe what steps the Foundation is taking and should 
     take to use the broader impacts criterion to improve 
     undergraduate science, mathematics, and engineering 
     education.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 7?
  The Clerk will designate section 8.
  The text of section 8 is as follows:

     SEC. 8. POSTDOCTORAL RESEARCH FELLOWS.

       (a) Mentoring.--The Director shall require that all grant 
     applications that include funding to support postdoctoral 
     researchers include a description of the mentoring activities 
     that will be provided for such individuals, and shall ensure 
     that this part of the application is evaluated under the 
     Foundation's broader impacts merit review criterion. 
     Mentoring activities may include career counseling, training 
     in preparing grant applications, guidance on ways to improve 
     teaching skills, and training in research ethics.
       (b) Reports.--The Director shall require that annual 
     reports and the final report for research grants that include 
     funding to support postdoctoral researchers include a 
     description of the mentoring activities provided to such 
     researchers.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 8?
  The Clerk will designate section 9.
  The text of section 9 is as follows:

     SEC. 9. RESPONSIBLE CONDUCT OF RESEARCH.

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

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 9?
  The Clerk will designate section 10.
  The text of section 10 is as follows:

     SEC. 10. REPORTING OF RESEARCH RESULTS.

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

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 10?
  The Clerk will designate section 11.
  The text of section 11 is as follows:

     SEC. 11. SHARING RESEARCH RESULTS.

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

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 12?
  The Clerk will designate section 12.
  The text of section 12 is as follows:

     SEC. 12. FUNDING FOR SUCCESSFUL STEM EDUCATION PROGRAMS.

       (a) Evaluation of Programs.--The Director shall, on an 
     annual basis, evaluate all of the Foundation's grants that 
     are scheduled to expire within one year and--
       (1) that have the primary purpose of meeting the objectives 
     of the Science and Engineering Equal Opportunity Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1885 et seq.); or
       (2) that have the primary purpose of providing teacher 
     professional development.
       (b) Continuation of Funding.--For grants that are 
     identified under subsection (a) and that are deemed by the 
     Director to be successful in meeting the objectives of the 
     initial grant solicitation, the Director may extend the 
     duration of those grants for up to 3 additional years beyond 
     their scheduled expiration without the requirement for a 
     recompetition. The Director may extend such grants for an 
     additional 3 years following a second review within 1 year 
     before the

[[Page 11107]]

     extended completion date, in accordance with subsection (a), 
     and the determination by the Director that the objectives of 
     the grant are being achieved.
       (c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 2 years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Director shall submit a 
     report to the Committee on Science and Technology of the 
     House of Representatives and to the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation and the Committee on Health, 
     Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate that--
       (1) lists the grants which have been extended in duration 
     by the authority provided under this section; and
       (2) provides any recommendations the Director may have 
     regarding the extension of the authority provided under this 
     section to programs other than those specified in subsection 
     (a).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 12?
  The Clerk will designate section 13.
  The text of section 13 is as follows:

     SEC. 13. COST SHARING.

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

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 13?
  The Clerk will designate section 14.
  The text of section 14 is as follows:

     SEC. 14. DONATIONS.

       Section 11(f) of the National Science Foundation Act of 
     1950 (42 U.S.C. 1870(f)) is amended by inserting at the end 
     before the semicolon ``, except that funds may be donated for 
     specific prize competitions''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 14?
  The Clerk will designate section 15.
  The text of section 15 is as follows:

     SEC. 15. ADDITIONAL REPORTS.

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

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 16?
  The Clerk will designate section 16.
  The text of section 16 is as follows:

     SEC. 16. ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Triannual Audit of the Office of the National Science 
     Board.--Section 15(a) of the National Science Foundation 
     Authorization Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 4862n-5) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``an annual audit'' and 
     inserting ``an audit every three years'';
       (2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``each year'' and 
     inserting ``every third year''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(5) Materials relating to closed portions of meetings.--
     To facilitate the audit required under paragraph (3) of this 
     subsection, the Office of the National Science Board shall 
     maintain the General Counsel's certificate, the presiding 
     officer's statement, and a transcript or recording of any 
     closed meeting, for at least 3 years after such meeting.''.
       (b) Limited Term Personnel for the National Science 
     Board.--Subsection (g) of section 4 of the National Science 
     Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1863(g)) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(g) The Board may, with the concurrence of a majority of 
     its members, permit the appointment of a staff consisting of 
     not more than 5 professional staff members, technical and 
     professional personnel on leave of absence from academic, 
     industrial, or research institutions for a limited term and 
     such operations and support staff members as may be 
     necessary. Such staff shall be appointed by the Chairman and 
     assigned at the direction of the Board. The professional 
     members and limited term technical and professional personnel 
     of such staff may be appointed without regard to the 
     provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing 
     appointments in the competitive service, and the provisions 
     of chapter 51 of such title relating to classification, and 
     shall be compensated at a rate not exceeding the maximum rate 
     payable under section 5376 of such title, as may be necessary 
     to provide for the performance of such duties as may be 
     prescribed by the Board in connection with the exercise of 
     its powers and functions under this Act. Section 14(a)(3) 
     shall apply to each limited term appointment of technical and 
     professional personnel under this subsection. Each 
     appointment under this subsection shall be subject to the 
     same security requirements as those required for personnel of 
     the Foundation appointed under section 14(a).''.
       (c) Increase in Number of Waterman Awards to Three.--
     Section 6(c) of the National Science Foundation Authorization 
     Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 1881a) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Up to three awards may be made under this section in 
     any one fiscal year.''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 16?
  The Clerk will designate section 17.
  The text of section 17 is as follows:

     SEC. 17. NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD REPORTS.

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

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 17?
  The Clerk will designate section 18.
  The text of section 18 is as follows:

     SEC. 18. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE REPORT ON DIVERSITY IN 
                   STEM FIELDS.

       (a) In General.--The Foundation shall enter into an 
     arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences for a 
     report, to be transmitted to

[[Page 11108]]

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

                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Matsui

  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 8 offered by Ms. Matsui:
       At the end of the bill, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 19. COMMUNICATIONS TRAINING FOR SCIENTISTS.

       (a) Grant Supplements for Communications Training.--The 
     Director shall provide grant supplements, on a competitive, 
     merit-reviewed basis, to institutions receiving awards under 
     the Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship 
     program. The grant supplements shall be used to train 
     graduate students in the communication of the substance and 
     importance of their research to nonscientist audiences, 
     including policymakers.
       (b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 3 years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Director shall transmit a 
     report to the Committee on Science and Technology of the 
     House of Representatives, and to the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation and the Committee on Health, 
     Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate, describing how 
     the activities required under subsection (a) have been 
     implemented. The report shall include data on the number of 
     graduate students trained and the number and size of grant 
     supplements awarded, and a description of the types of 
     activities funded through the grant supplements.

  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, this amendment to the NSF reauthorization 
is designed to improve the ability of scientists to communicate with 
nonscientific audiences such as businesses, the media, the general 
public and, of course, Members of Congress. Specifically, my amendment 
would add a provision to H.R. 1667 that authorizes a science 
communications initiative at the National Science Foundation.
  I believe this proposal will ensure that we are getting as much 
return on the Federal Government's investment in the National Science 
Foundation as possible. By implementing this program, it would 
diversify the education of our scientists and would ensure that 
policymakers and other nonscientists have better access to the 
technical expertise fostered by NSF and the Nation's broader research 
enterprise, because if scientists can't tell the rest of us what they 
have discovered, we are not fully recognizing the benefits of our 
investment in scientific research. Unfortunately, the ability to 
articulate the content and significance of scientific information is 
often overlooked by graduate training programs.
  My amendment directly addresses this unmet need and would create a 
pipeline of scientists who are increasingly engaged with nonscientists, 
including policymakers, business leaders and others. Providing 
communications training to our scientists will ensure that we, the 
policymakers, can make the most informed decisions possible as we 
debate technical issues and craft policy.
  This amendment creates a competitively reviewed supplement within the 
Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship, or IGERT 
program. Investigators at IGERT-awardee institutions will compete for 
resources to develop and implement communications training. The IGERT 
program will administer the competitive review process for this 
communications training initiative.
  I have received strong support for this program from stakeholders in 
my district of Sacramento and from across the country. Policymakers, 
scientists, educators, business leaders and science writers all agree 
we need to better integrate scientific expertise into the public 
debate.
  This amendment represents an important step toward that goal. That is 
why this amendment has received the endorsement of the American 
Association for the Advancement of Science and The Council of Graduate 
Schools.
  This amendment is based on the Scientific Communication Act of 2007, 
H.R. 1453, that I introduced with Chairman Gordon as an original 
cosponsor. I would like to thank Chairman Gordon, Mr. Hope, Mr. Allen, 
Mr. Inslee and Mr. Higgins for their cosponsorship of that legislation.
  Before I close, I would like to address a few misconceptions about 
this amendment. I want to be clear, this amendment contains no new 
authorization levels. For those who said that this program would take 
away from other NSF grants, I want to make a few points. The NSF 
Director would determine the level of resources to devote to this 
program. If the NSF Director does not deem this program worthy of 
funding, it won't get any.
  However, I think scientists, teachers, reporters, business owners, 
Members of Congress and all our constituents should support this 
program. This bill authorized $21 billion for the National Science 
Foundation.
  What good is that level of investment if we don't maximize the 
benefits? You should not need a Ph.D. to utilize the ideas and 
breakthroughs that NSF-supported research produces. That's why I am 
proposing this amendment. It will help to bridge the communication gap 
between scientists and the rest of us.
  I hope all my colleagues here in the House will support this 
amendment. As policymakers, I promise you, you will personally benefit 
from this program when you hear expert testimony on technical topics. 
But, more importantly, you should support it because it will enable all 
your constituents to share in the excellent research supported by NSF.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I rise with some reluctance to speak against this amendment, because 
I like the idea of what the gentlewoman from California is trying to 
do. But my concern is twofold. First of all, this will cut into the 
funding that the NSF already has. It's an added requirement for them.
  But my major objection is, I have taught at the university level and 
have taught at the college level. I have always felt this is the 
responsibility of the colleges and universities to do, and they 
shouldn't need an NSF grant to do this.
  The job of the colleges and universities is to teach. What this is 
proposing is that the NSF will be responsible for teaching these 
students how to communicate their research.
  I always tried to do that with my students when I had graduate 
students. I think that's an integral part of the education program. So 
I reluctantly urge defeat of this amendment, simply because I think we 
ought to make it clear to the universities and the colleges that this 
is part of their responsibility.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Matsui amendment. As Members 
of Congress, we all understand just how critical communications skills 
are, whether we are trying to influence our colleagues during debate 
such as tonight, or trying to explain a vote to our constituents.

                              {time}  2200

  If you cannot communicate effectively, the value of ideas can be lost 
and all of your work may be lost. The same is true for our Nation's 
scientists

[[Page 11109]]

as they attempt to convey their work to colleagues and especially to 
nonscientific audience.
  This afternoon, when I had the opportunity to speak with five recent 
American Nobel laureate scientists, I was very impressed by their 
ability to explain their work. I may even say I was surprised. Why? 
Because, unfortunately, scientists are not always the most gifted 
speakers, and this is not a skill that we regularly find taught in 
graduate schools. Dr. Ehlers was obviously doing a much better job when 
he was a professor, but this is not something that I have found as a 
professor that is taught very often. And I speak from experience both 
as a professor and as an engineer, and perhaps some may say I 
personally provide evidence supporting this generalization.
  So the Matsui amendment addresses this problem by helping to provide 
communication training to our Nation's young scientists. If scientists 
can help better explain their research, it will help us as policymakers 
as they come to explain and we could choose the best path to move 
forward, especially in the Science Committee. And perhaps business 
leaders will be better able to turn some academic research into a good 
marketable product if they can understand what this research can do.
  Finally, I believe that the ability of our scientists to more 
effectively communicate scientific information will inspire more 
children to pursue a career in science. No one is inspired by something 
that they don't know because they are unable to understand it.
  I thank Congresswoman Matsui for offering this amendment, and I urge 
my colleagues for joining me in supporting it.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentlelady from 
California's amendment, and let me share with you why.
  I think most Members of this body have had people from the scientific 
community come and talk to us about why their research matters or how 
it is going to help society, and we have said to ourselves or to them, 
``Could you please put that in English so I know what you are talking 
about?''
  The challenge is that the esoteric realm that some of the scientists 
work in is really beyond some of our ken. And I think that is fine. But 
if we are going to make informed policy decisions, it is essential that 
we understand the research that we are making decisions about that may 
have been illustrated earlier tonight in some of the discussion.
  Let me share with you, and I respect Dr. Ehlers immensely, as 
everyone knows. But the very researchers who, if there is concern that 
this proposal by the gentlelady from California would reduce funding 
for other research, let me point out that many of the associations 
whose members depend on the core research funding nevertheless believe 
there is merit to this amendment. And let me share with you, the 
American Association for the Advancement of Science, I will read in a 
moment what they have to say, the Federation of American Society for 
Experimental Biology, the Council of Graduate Schools, the Society for 
Neuroscience. I absolutely believe as a former teacher of science, I 
believe it is our obligation as teachers to help our young charges 
learn how to communicate what they do. But it is not being done well 
enough, that has been recognized, and the gentlelady is to be commended 
for it.
  Let me share with you that the American Association for the 
Advancement of Science says the following, which I will submit for 
printing in the Record. ``While Federal support of scientific research 
is of critical importance to innovation,'' and let me underscore this, 
``it is also very important that we find ways to make sure that science 
is effectively used to advance the human condition. Scientists and 
engineers must have the tools needed to communicate the work they do. 
The ability to more effectively communicate scientific information may 
inspire more children to pursue a career in science, and certainly will 
help a higher quality dialogue among the research community and the 
citizens whose investment it relies on.''
  So I commend the gentlelady. This is something that we don't talk 
about a lot; but when people have to communicate information to the 
policymakers or to the public or to the consumers of their research, it 
is important they do so in a way that is intelligible. This amendment 
moves an important step in that direction. I applaud her and urge its 
passage.

                                              American Association


                               for the Advancement of Science,

                                      Washington, DC, May 2, 2007.
     Hon. Doris Matsui,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Rep. Matsui: Thank you for your support in the recent 
     passage of the reauthorization for the National Science 
     Foundation (NSF) by the House Science and Technology 
     Committee.
       As you prepare to debate the NSF reauthorization bill (H.R. 
     1867) on the floor, I would like to express our support for 
     your efforts to improve scientific communication with the 
     public. For over 50 years, the NSF has had a unique role in 
     supporting basic research across the spectrum of scientific 
     disciplines. This support has led to remarkable advances in 
     fields as disparate as nanotechnology and economic theory.
       While federal support of scientific research is of critical 
     importance to innovation, it is also very important that we 
     find ways to make sure that science is effectively used to 
     advance the human condition. Scientists and engineers must 
     have the tools needed to communicate the work that they do. 
     The ability to more effectively communicate scientific 
     information may inspire more children to pursue a career in 
     science. It certainly will help create a higher quality 
     dialogue among the research community, the citizens whose 
     investment it relies upon, and the broad society it 
     ultimately serves.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Alan L. Leshner,
                                          Chief Executive Officer.

  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am confused. The gentleman from Washington has been 
stating about micromanaging the NSF; and now that I see what this 
amendment does is not only try to micromanage what they do with their 
grants and their money, but it is also saying to me that these 
institutions that get these awards grants for the research from the NSF 
do not have a complete teaching ability to teach these graduate 
students how to put their thoughts to a nonscientist audience.
  Now, to me, we are not only micromanaging the NSF, but now we are 
getting into some of these schools that receive these grants and 
saying: You are not doing a full curriculum enough that you can educate 
these young scientists and these young researchers into how to explain 
themselves to nonscientist audiences.
  So I think you can't have your cake and eat it, too. Either we don't 
want to micromanage, and if we are going to micromanage, who is the 
ultimate decider of that? And also, are we going to start micromanaging 
what the curriculum is for these higher institutes of learning that are 
turning out these scientists?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Lynch). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Ehlers

  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Ehlers:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. 19. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING THE MATHEMATICS AND 
                   SCIENCE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS OF THE DEPARTMENT 
                   OF EDUCATION AND THE NATIONAL SCIENCE 
                   FOUNDATION.

       It is the sense of the Congress that--
       (1) although the mathematics and science education 
     partnership program at the National Science Foundation and 
     the mathematics and science partnership program at

[[Page 11110]]

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

  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to address a particular problem with 
this amendment. We have, for some time, had activities within the 
National Science Foundation aimed at teaching future teachers, teaching 
them how to teach math and science, and this generally fell into the 
rubric of a math-science partnership, because the Foundation itself did 
not teach the teachers but rather responded to grants submitted by 
professors at various institutions who were pleased to set up programs 
to teach these future teachers or existing teachers how better to teach 
math and science. These have been very successful programs and are 
commonly referred to as the math-science partnership.
  Recently, the Department of Education has developed programs 
involving professional development for teachers in elementary and 
secondary schools to try to bring them up to speed on the latest 
developments in math and science and how to teach them. They ended up 
calling it the math-science partnership.
  This has resulted in a problem because some in the administration 
decided to cut the budget of the National Science Foundation because 
they felt this was a duplication of programs. It is not.
  The National Science Foundation concentrates on doing research. The 
Foundation's model is designed for competitive grants to spur 
innovative programs that will be peer reviewed and evaluated to enhance 
research on effective math and science education, whereas the 
Department of Education ensures that this knowledge is disseminated to 
as many school districts as possible. Knowledge gained from the 
competitive foundation scholarships, in other words the National 
Science Foundation math-science partnerships, can be used and is used 
to prove and enhance State investments in programs developed by the 
Department of Education.
  In other words, these are two programs that happen to have the same 
names. They are very symbiotic. The discoveries out of the research at 
the National Science Foundation transfers directly over to the 
Department of Education, and is there applied to instructions in the 
classrooms and for teacher training programs.

                              {time}  2210

  Another reason I come to offer this amendment is because the other 
body, the Senate, is working on this same issue, this same bill, and 
they have added an amendment which clarifies the difference between the 
National Science Foundation programs and the Department of Education 
programs. I am offering essentially the same amendment so that when we 
go to conference with the Senate, this will be preagreed to. It's a 
necessary and important clarification of the functions of the two, and 
I urge the adoption of my amendment.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The superb gentleman from Michigan is absolutely right. It's a superb 
amendment. We're happy to accept it, and I commend him for offering it.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. McNerney

  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. McNerney:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. 19. HISPANIC-SERVING INSTITUTIONS UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM.

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

  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Gordon, 
Ranking Member Hall, and my good friend Dr. Baird for bringing H.R. 
1867, the National Science Foundation Reauthorization Act, to the 
floor. This is a very important bill that will benefit our young 
scientists for generations to come.
  I would also like to thank some of my colleagues, Ms. Giffords and 
Mr. Crowley, for their support.
  My amendment makes a needed change to H.R. 1867 by allowing the 
Director of the National Science Foundation to establish a competitive, 
merit-based program to award grants to Hispanic-serving institutions 
for science, technology, engineering and mathematics, or STEM 
education.
  The U.S. is in danger of falling behind the rest of our competitors 
in the world in STEM education, and it is imperative that we improve 
academics in this country. We need initiatives that increase 
educational opportunities for all young adults in order to expand the 
number of students who pursue careers in science and math-related 
fields.
  The National Academy of Science's study, Rising Above the Gathering 
Storm, paints a very sobering picture of our future if we continue to 
see declines in both the quality and the quantity of science and math 
students. However, we can alter this current trend by expanding options 
for our children.
  The House has passed numerous bills in recent weeks to create new 
opportunities in STEM education. These are excellent first steps. 
Likewise, today's legislation, and my amendment, provide us with the 
building blocks for academic progress. We should continue working hard 
to improve access to education and offer better services for our 
students and families.
  This amendment does that by allowing Hispanic-serving institutions 
throughout the country to participate in NSF programs. As the largest 
minority group in the United States, Hispanic populations should be 
encouraged to access the educational fields where we need the most 
talent, in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.
  At San Joaquin Delta College in my district, and at hundreds of 
similar 2- and 4-year institutions, students benefit from existing 
funds and programs that will be enhanced by the adoption of this 
amendment.
  We should give the NSF the ability to support improvement of 
curriculum and courses at Hispanic-serving institutions, while also 
providing for faculty development initiatives that will lead to better-
educated students.
  In addition to the benefits of these changes, my amendment is 
fiscally responsible. It authorizes no new funding. It simply provides 
the opportunity for Hispanic-serving institutions to compete for NSF 
funds in the same way as other institutions.
  The NSF already supports similar programs for Historically Black 
Colleges and Universities and Tribal Colleges, and this amendment will 
allow

[[Page 11111]]

Hispanic-serving institutions to better serve our future leaders and 
scientists.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in support of the McNerney-
Giffords-Crowley amendment to the National Science Foundation 
Authorization Act of 2007.
  I want to thank Congressman McNerney and Congressman Crowley for 
their help in crafting this amendment. It has been a pleasure to work 
with both of them.
  A Hispanic-serving institution is defined as an institution of higher 
education that has at least 25 percent Hispanic full-time enrollment, 
and at least 50 percent of the school's student population must be 
eligible for need-based financial aid.
  This amendment will establish a new program in the National Science 
Foundation to award grants to Hispanic-serving institutions on a 
competitive, merit-reviewed basis. These grants will enhance the 
quality of undergraduate science, math, engineering and technology 
education. This will increase student retention and graduation rates 
for those students pursuing degrees in these critical areas.
  Specifically, this grant program will support faculty development, 
which is critical; stipends for undergraduate students participating in 
research; and initiatives to improve courses and curriculum in science, 
math and engineering and technology.
  In 2005, Mr. Chairman, a group of bipartisan congressional lawmakers 
asked the experts at the National Academies for steps that policymakers 
must pursue in order to ensure the United States remains globally 
competitive.
  Their report, entitled Rising Above the Gathering Storm, which we 
refer to frequently on the Science Committee, found that the United 
States will stand to lose in terms of global competitiveness unless we 
act immediately.
  One of the recommendations was to increase the participation of 
minorities in STEM education fields. That report stated that 
``increasing participation of underrepresented minorities is critical 
to ensuring a high-quality supply of scientists and engineers in the 
United States over the long term. And as minority groups increase in 
percentage within the United States population, increasing their 
participation in those STEM fields is critical.''
  In my home State of Arizona, 50 percent of the population 18 years of 
age and younger are Hispanic. My amendment will ensure that Hispanics, 
our Nation's largest ethnic minority, and many blacks, whites, Asians 
and Native Americans who attend Hispanic-serving institutions will be 
able to more fully contribute to American innovation. It will expand 
the number of students graduating with the credentials to enter the 
critical fields that impact American competitiveness, those STEM 
fields.
  This amendment truly benefits all of the United States of America.
  In my district I have three Hispanic-serving institutions, Pima 
Community College, Cochise Community College and, of course, the 
University of Arizona South. All three of these institutions support 
this amendment which would give them the opportunity to improve their 
STEM education programs.
  Dr. Karen Nicodemus, who is the president of Cochise College, told my 
office, ``As President of a rural Hispanic-serving institution, I 
applaud and strongly support any and all efforts to fund and expand 
undergraduate student access to the STEM areas. Directing resources to 
a growing but historically underserved student population is essential, 
essential to fully engaging and preparing them for the 21st century,'' 
Mr. Chairman, which we know is so critical.
  According to Dr. Roy Flores, who is the chancellor of Pima Community 
College, ``Our ability to increase minority graduates in science, 
technology, engineering and math degree programs will determine our 
relative position in the global economy.''
  This amendment, Mr. Chairman, is all about keeping America globally 
competitive in this 21st century. I encourage all of my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I just want to simply rise to congratulate my colleagues, both Mr. 
McNerney as well as Ms. Giffords, both leaders on the Science Committee 
on this issue, in advancing our Democratic innovative agenda.
  This amendment will benefit Hispanic-serving institutions throughout 
our Nation to inspire more of our young people to seek careers in 
industries that will foster the growth in mathematics and science among 
primarily Hispanic-serving institutions.

                              {time}  2220

  And I stand wholeheartedly behind this amendment. This will include 
over 10,000 students in my district who will directly benefit from this 
amendment. Let me just read some of the institutions in Queens and the 
Bronx, including Lehman College, Bronx Community College, Hostos 
Community College, LaGuardia Community College, Vaughn College of 
Aeronautics and Technology at LaGuardia Airport, and the College of 
Mount Saint Vincent. They are just a few of the colleges that will 
benefit from this amendment.
  And with that, Mr. Chairman, I wholeheartedly support it and ask my 
colleagues to support this amendment as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the McNerney-Giffords 
amendment. This amendment establishes a new competitive grants program 
specifically for Hispanic-Serving Institutions at the National Science 
Foundation.
  I would like to thank Representative McNerney and Representative 
Giffords for their leadership in offering this amendment, which will 
increase opportunities for so many undergraduate students.
  This amendment will focus attention on the need to involve more 
Hispanic students in the science field by creating a specific program 
for Hispanic-Serving Institutions to receive infrastructure development 
funding.
  I would also like to thank Chairman Gordon, Subcommittee Chairman 
Baird, and the staff at the Science and Technology Committee for their 
assistance in drafting this amendment, and for their commitment to 
increasing participation of minorities in the science and technology 
fields.
  Hispanic-Serving Institutions serve the majority of the nearly two 
million Hispanic students enrolled in college today, and many of these 
institutions offer associate, undergraduate, and graduate programs and 
degrees in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 
fields.
  The Hispanic-Serving Institutions Undergraduate Program created by 
this amendment will allow these colleges and universities to access the 
funding they need to enhance their educational programs.
  In my district alone, about 10,000 students attend Hispanic-Serving 
Institutions offering degrees in these science fields. Students at 
institutions throughout Queens and the Bronx, including Lehman College, 
Bronx Community College, Hostos Community College, LaGuardia Community 
College, Vaughn College of Aeronautics and Technology, and the College 
of Mount Saint Vincent, like those all across the country, will benefit 
from increased access to funding to improve these degree programs.
  This amendment corrects a long-standing inequality at the National 
Science Foundation.
  Unlike their counterparts of Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities and Tribal Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-Serving 
Institutions have not benefited from a specific program to provide them 
with grants for research, curriculum, and infrastructure development.
  Without access to targeted capacity-building grants, Hispanic-Serving 
Institutions have difficulty increasing the ranks of Hispanics in the 
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields, where they 
have been historically underrepresented. Studies show that Hispanics 
earn less than 3 percent of doctorates in these areas, compared to more 
than 50 percent by non-Hispanic whites.
  This amendment also goes to the heart of the Innovation Agenda 
spearheaded by Speaker Pelosi and the new Democratic Coalition in the 
House to increase our Nation's competitiveness and create more math and 
science graduates.
  To maintain our global competitiveness, we need to increase our pool 
of scientists, mathematicians, and engineers.
  We can do this by ensuring that Hispanics, the youngest and fastest-
growing ethnic population group in the nation, are prepared with

[[Page 11112]]

the knowledge and skills that will contribute to our Nation's future 
economic strength, security and global leadership.
  This grants program will educate and train a new generation of 
experts in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics areas. 
By engaging Hispanic-Serving Institutions in this process, we can reach 
out to and involve more of the Hispanic educational community.
  The National Science Foundation, through its undergraduate and 
graduate programs, can assist Hispanic-Serving Institutions in 
developing programs to prepare current and future generations of 
Hispanics and other minority professionals in the sciences.
  I applaud the establishment of a Hispanic-Serving Institutions 
Undergraduate Program to achieve these goals, and I urge passage of 
this excellent amendment by Representatives McNerney and Giffords.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The prior speakers have been very eloquent in support of this and the 
hour is late; so I won't go into any detail. I just want to commend 
them for their leadership on this and urge support of this outstanding 
amendment.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I want to commend my colleagues as well for bringing what would on 
its face value be seen as a remarkably new and innovative program. In 
fact, I think as the gentleman said, advancing ``the Democratic 
innovation agenda.'' Well, it is curious, Mr. Chairman, because if you 
view and look specifically at the language that is in this amendment, 
and it is to be commended indeed, it bears striking resemblance to the 
language in current law. In fact, the National Science Foundation 
Authorization Act of 2002, section 24 has language that is exactly the 
same as is in this amendment.
  So I want to commend my colleagues for being inventive and being 
innovative indeed.
  I also think it would be appropriate for them to cite, in fact, where 
the original language came from, and that was the prior Republican 
Congress. So I commend my colleagues for their innovation, indeed, in 
formulating an amendment that is already in place in current law.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).
  The amendment was agreed to.


            Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Price of Georgia:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. 19. REQUIREMENT OF OFFSETS.

       (a) In General.--No authorization of appropriations made by 
     this Act or other provision of this Act that results in costs 
     to the Federal Government shall be effective except to the 
     extent that this Act provides for offsetting decreases in 
     spending of the Federal Government, such that the net effect 
     of this Act does not either increase the Federal deficit or 
     reduce the Federal surplus.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``deficit'' 
     and ``surplus'' have the meanings given such terms in the 
     Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 
     U.S.C. 621 et seq.).

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I know the hour is late and we 
are drawing to a close on this, and I think this is an appropriate 
amendment upon which to end for this is the amendment that allows us as 
a Congress to say, yes, indeed, we believe that fiscal responsibility 
is important.
  As you know, Mr. Chairman, this bill, the National Science Foundation 
Authorization Act, authorizes $20.973 billion, nearly $21 billion, over 
3 years and creates five new Federal programs. The National Science 
Foundation Authorization Act establishes a pilot program of 1-year seed 
grants for new investigators to help improve funding rates for young 
investigators and to stimulate higher-risk research. It encourages the 
NSF to foster relationships between academia and industry in order to 
spawn U.S. competitiveness and furthers the Agency's traditions of 
education in science, technology, engineering, and math.
  The NSF has a mission to achieve excellence in science, technology, 
engineering, and mathematics education at all levels and all settings 
from kindergarten through postdoctoral training, from classrooms to 
science museums and online resources, having done so for the last half 
century. And while what this bill does is extremely important, equally 
important is this amendment that will apply the principle of pay as you 
go to any new spending authorized by this legislation by requiring that 
any new spending have a specific offset.
  The amendment provides that no authorization of appropriations made 
by this Act that results in costs to the Federal Government shall be 
effective unless there are decreases in spending elsewhere in the 
Federal Government.
  Mr. Chairman, common sense dictates that that is what we should do. 
Not only common sense, but previous promises by this new majority. An 
excerpt of ``A New Direction for America,'' which was proposed by House 
Democrats in the 109th Congress as their plan for the majority, it 
reads: ``Our New Direction is committed to pay-as-you-go budgeting, no 
more deficit spending. We are committed to auditing the books and 
subjecting every facet of Federal spending to tough budget discipline 
and accountability, forcing the Congress to choose a new direction and 
the right priorities for all Americans.''
  Well, hear, hear, Mr. Chairman. I heartily agree. But on April 18, 
Majority Leader Hoyer was quoted in Roll Call as saying, ``We want to 
get the budget deficit under control. We have said that fiscal 
responsibility was necessary, but we're not going to be hoisted on the 
torrent of fiscal responsibility.''
  Well, Mr. Chairman, Americans all across this Nation are being shaken 
down by a ``torrent'' of fiscal irresponsibility.
  I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, the rules are not rules if you only 
follow them when you want to. The Democrats promised pay-as-you-go 
rules for everything. Instead, they are picking and choosing, picking 
and choosing when to do so. At home, we call that breaking a rule and 
breaking a promise.
  So while what this bill does is extremely important, $20.973 billion 
is a considerable amount of money even here in Washington, and it is 
equally important that we are good stewards of the hard-earned money of 
the American people. We should not limit our talk about fiscal 
responsibility only when it is politically convenient.
  So I urge the new majority to rededicate itself to the principle of 
pay-as-you-go spending. Fiscal responsibility shouldn't be something 
that is just talked about only on the campaign trail.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this commonsense, fiscally 
responsible, pay-as-you-go amendment.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  In the midst of all this serious debate about an extremely important 
bill, I would like to pause just a moment to have a lighter moment that 
we can all enjoy as we recognize that one of our leading Members in 
this Congress tomorrow reaches a major milestone. The ranking member of 
the Science Committee, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Ralph Hall, 
tomorrow will begin the second half of his life. He reaches the age of 
84 tomorrow. So we can all celebrate with him and appreciate the 
tremendous contributions he has made to this Congress and to this 
country.
  And I think it is entirely appropriate that on the eve of this 
important occasion, he spends the entire evening in this Chamber 
debating the esoteric aspects of science and its results.
  So I hope all of you will join me at some point in the next day of 
wishing Mr. Hall an immensely wonderful 84th birthday tomorrow.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to share the happy birthday wishes to the 
distinguished ranking member and thank him for his bipartisan 
participation in not only this, but so many endeavors.
  Congratulations, Ralph. You are a dear friend and a model to many of 
us,

[[Page 11113]]

and I very much appreciate all your service.
  I also want to thank Chairman Gordon for his leadership in not only 
this bill but the entire innovation agenda that has been moving through 
this Congress so efficiently and with, again, good bipartisan support.
  I mentioned Mr. Ehlers repeatedly earlier tonight. He has been so 
central to the passage of this bill. And I especially want to thank the 
majority staff and the minority staff. We have worked very well 
together.
  And I want to thank my dear friends and colleagues on the other side. 
Though we have had a spirited disagreement on some issues and agreed on 
some, it has been a civil debate, a well-intentioned debate, and I 
think it has advanced our discussion of the important role of this 
legislation.
  The amendment by the gentleman from Georgia has been offered before. 
It has been defeated before on other bills. I would urge its defeat. 
And after we accomplish that, I would urge passage of this otherwise 
outstanding bill.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I just want to rise to first thank Dr. Ehlers and reiterate my 
support for H.R. 1867. I think we have a good bill here that propels us 
on down the innovation and competitiveness path that the President is 
on and that we have been on. I also thank Chairman Gordon and Chairman 
Baird.
  Dr. Ehlers, I thank you again for helping to make this a better bill. 
In fact, I would argue that there is no one in this body more familiar 
with NSF than you are.

                              {time}  2230

  I thank you for your work for and against some of these amendments.
  I rise in support of the bill and urge an ``aye'' vote on it.
  And, Dr. Baird, I thank you personally for your kindness and the 
classy way you've handled yourself today.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will 
be postponed.


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order:
  The amendment to Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Sullivan of Oklahoma.
  Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Honda of California.
  Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Campbell of California.
  Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Campbell of California.
  Amendment No. 11 by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey.
  Amendment No. 7 by Mr. Flake of Arizona.
  Amendment No. 8 by Ms. Matsui of California.
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Price of Georgia.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


  Amendment Offered by Mr. Sullivan to Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. 
                                 Honda

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Sullivan) to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Honda) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 166, 
noes 250, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 287]

                               AYES--166

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costello
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--250

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

[[Page 11114]]


     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Brady (PA)
     Cannon
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Engel
     Faleomavaega
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Fortuno
     Graves
     Hunter
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennedy
     Lampson
     McMorris Rodgers
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Ortiz
     Paul
     Radanovich
     Tancredo

                              {time}  2255

  Messrs. JOHNSON of Illinois, DAVIS of Illinois, REYES and RUSH 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. MACK and Mrs. SCHMIDT changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Honda

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 252, 
noes 165, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 288]

                               AYES--252

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

                               NOES--165

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Brady (PA)
     Cannon
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Engel
     Faleomavaega
     Fattah
     Fortuno
     Graves
     Hunter
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennedy
     Lampson
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mollohan
     Norton
     Ortiz
     Paul
     Radanovich
     Tancredo


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 1 minute 
remains in the vote.

                              {time}  2259

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


         Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Campbell of California

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Campbell) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 195, 
noes 222, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 289]

                               AYES--195

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Green, Gene
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood

[[Page 11115]]


     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Souder
     Space
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--222

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

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Brady (PA)
     Cannon
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Engel
     Faleomavaega
     Fattah
     Fortuno
     Graves
     Hunter
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennedy
     Lampson
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mollohan
     Norton
     Ortiz
     Paul
     Radanovich
     Tancredo


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised they have 
1 minute remaining to vote.

                              {time}  2305

  Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, during Rollcall 
vote No. 289 on H.R. 1867, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``no'' when 
I should have voted ``aye.''


         Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Campbell of California

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Campbell) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 115, 
noes 301, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 290]

                               AYES--115

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Duncan
     Ellsworth
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Lamborn
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe
     Putnam
     Rehberg
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Tiberi
     Walberg
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--301

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Bono
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering

[[Page 11116]]


     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tauscher
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Brady (PA)
     Cannon
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Doyle
     Engel
     Faleomavaega
     Fattah
     Fortuno
     Graves
     Hunter
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Lampson
     McMorris Rodgers
     Norton
     Ortiz
     Paul
     Radanovich
     Tancredo


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised they have 
1 minute remaining to vote.

                              {time}  2308

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


         Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Garrett) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 126, 
noes 292, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 291]

                               AYES--126

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Duncan
     Ellsworth
     English (PA)
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Rehberg
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Walberg
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--292

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bono
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Brady (PA)
     Cannon
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Engel
     Faleomavaega
     Fattah
     Fortuno
     Graves
     Hunter
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennedy
     Lampson
     McMorris Rodgers
     Norton
     Ortiz
     Paul
     Radanovich
     Tancredo


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there is 1 
minute remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  2313

  Mr. PERLMUTTER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Flake

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Flake) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 128, 
noes 290, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 292]

                               AYES--128

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)

[[Page 11117]]


     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Bilbray
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Carney
     Carter
     Chabot
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy, Patrick
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Tiberi
     Walberg
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--290

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Klein (FL)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Brady (PA)
     Cannon
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Engel
     Faleomavaega
     Fattah
     Fortuno
     Graves
     Hunter
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennedy
     Lampson
     McMorris Rodgers
     Norton
     Ortiz
     Paul
     Radanovich
     Tancredo


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there is 1 
minute remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  2317

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Matsui

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Matsui) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 232, 
noes 186, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 293]

                               AYES--232

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

                               NOES--186

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bean
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito

[[Page 11118]]


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

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Brady (PA)
     Cannon
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Engel
     Faleomavaega
     Fattah
     Fortuno
     Graves
     Hunter
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennedy
     Lampson
     McMorris Rodgers
     Norton
     Ortiz
     Paul
     Radanovich
     Tancredo


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 1 minute 
remains in this vote.

                              {time}  2322

  Mrs. GILLIBRAND changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


            Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Price) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183, 
noes 235, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 294]

                               AYES--183

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--235

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

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Brady (PA)
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Engel
     Faleomavaega
     Fattah
     Fortuno
     Graves
     Hunter
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennedy
     Lampson
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Norton
     Ortiz
     Paul
     Radanovich
     Tancredo


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 1 minute 
remains in this vote.

                              {time}  2326

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in 
the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs. 
Boyda of Kansas) having assumed the

[[Page 11119]]

chair, Mr. Lynch, Acting Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had 
under consideration the bill (H.R. 1867) to authorize appropriations 
for fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010 for the National Science 
Foundation, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 349, 
he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the 
Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole? If not, the question is on 
the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 399, 
noes 17, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 295]

                               AYES--399

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--17

     Barrett (SC)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Deal (GA)
     Duncan
     Flake
     Franks (AZ)
     Hensarling
     Hoekstra
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kingston
     Linder
     Pitts
     Royce
     Sali
     Shadegg

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Brady (PA)
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Engel
     Fattah
     Graves
     Hunter
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennedy
     Lampson
     McMorris Rodgers
     Ortiz
     Paul
     Radanovich
     Sullivan
     Tancredo

                              {time}  2344

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

                          ____________________