[House Report 109-415]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



109th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     109-415

======================================================================



 
               WORKFORCE GLOBALIZATION FINAL DRAFT REPORT

                                _______
                                

   April 7, 2006.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

  Mr. Boehlert, from the Committee on Science, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                       [To accompany H. Res. 717]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Science, to whom was referred the resolution 
(H. Res. 717) directing the Secretary of Commerce to transmit 
to the House of Representatives a copy of a workforce 
globalization final draft report produced by the Technology 
Administration, having considered the same, report without 
recommendation.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
  I. Purpose of the Bill..............................................2
 II. Background and Need for the Legislation..........................2
III. Summary of Hearings..............................................2
 IV. Committee Actions................................................2
  V. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill..........................2
 VI. Committee Views..................................................3
VII. Compliance with Public Law 104-4 (Unfunded Mandates).............3
VIII.Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations.................3

 IX. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives............3
  X. Constitutional Authority Statement...............................3
 XI. Federal Advisory Committee Statement.............................3
XII. Congressional Accountability Act.................................3
XIII.Committee Recommendations........................................3

XIV. Minority Views...................................................4
 XV. Proceedings of Full Committee Markup.............................9

                         I. Purpose of the Bill

    House Resolution 717 directs the Secretary of Commerce to 
transmit to the House of Representatives, not later than 14 
days after the date of the adoption of this resolution, a copy 
of the final draft report, produced by the professional staff 
of the Technology Administration, entitled: ``Six-Month 
Assessment of Workforce Globalization In Certain Knowledge-
Based Industries''.

              II. Background and Need for the Legislation

    House Resolution 717 is a resolution of inquiry, which, 
pursuant to rule XIII, clause 7, of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, directs the Committee to act on the resolution 
within 14 legislative days, or a privileged motion to discharge 
the Committee is in order.
    Under the rules and precedents of the House, a resolution 
of inquiry is the means by which the House requests information 
from the President of the United States or the head of an 
executive department. According to ``Deschler's Precedents,'' 
it is a ``simple resolution making a direct request or demand 
of the President or the head of an executive department to 
furnish the House of Representatives with specific factual 
information in the possession of the executive branch.''

                        III. Summary of Hearings

    The Committee held no hearings on the resolution.

                         IV. Committee Actions

    On March 9, 2006, Congressman Bart Gordon of Tennessee 
introduced H. Res. 717, which was referred to the Committee on 
Science.
    On March 29, 2006, the Committee on Science met to consider 
H. Res. 717. No amendments were offered. The resolution failed 
on a recorded vote of 19 yeas and 14 nays.
    Mr. Ehlers moved that the Committee adversely report the 
resolution to the House with the recommendation that the 
resolution not be agreed to and that the staff be instructed to 
prepare the legislative report and make necessary technical and 
conforming changes. The motion was not agreed to by a recorded 
vote of 17 yeas and 17 nays.
    On April 5, 2006, the Committee on Science met to consider 
a motion to report H. Res. 717 without recommendation.
    Mr. Ehlers moved that the Committee report the resolution 
to the House without recommendation and that the staff be 
instructed to prepare the legislative report and make necessary 
technical and conforming changes. The motion was agreed to by 
voice vote.

               V. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill

    House Resolution 717 directs the Secretary of Commerce to 
transmit to the House of Representatives, not later than 14 
days after the date of the adoption of this resolution, a copy 
of the final draft report, produced by the professional staff 
of the Technology Administration, entitled: ``Six-Month 
Assessment of Workforce Globalization In Certain Knowledge-
Based Industries.''

                          VI. Committee Views

    The resolution seeks a pre-clearance draft of a report that 
was released in 2005 by the Technology Administration of the 
Department of Commerce entitled, ``Six-Month Assessment of 
Workforce Globalization In Certain Knowledge-Based 
Industries.''
    The Committee notes that the report has been superseded by 
a far more extensive report on outsourcing being prepared by 
the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA), at the 
request of the same House Appropriations subcommittee that had 
requested the Commerce Department report.

                 VII. Compliance With Public Law 104-4

    H. Res. 717 contains no unfunded mandates.

         VIII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations

    The Committee held no oversight activities with respect to 
clause 3(c)(1) of rule XII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives.

       IX. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives

    The rule requiring a statement of performance goals and 
objectives is inapplicable.

                 X. Constitutional Authority Statement

    Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United 
States grants Congress the authority for H. Res. 717.

                XI. Federal Advisory Committee Statement

    H. Res. 717 does not create any advisory committees.

                 XII. Congressional Accountability Act

    The Committee finds that H. Res. 717 does not relate to the 
terms and conditions of employment or access to public services 
or accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of 
the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104-1).

                    XIII. Committee Recommendations

    On April 5, 2006, the Committee on Science reported H. Res. 
717 without recommendation by voice vote.
                          XIV. MINORITY VIEWS

    A CNN report in early March 2006 noted that 500,000 
American jobs have migrated to India in recent years. That 
number is expected to triple in the next two years as American 
companies seek to cut costs and streamline business. India is 
but one example of a country that seems to be gaining 
employment at the expense of American workers. Over the last 
six years, the U.S. has lost just under 3 million manufacturing 
jobs--many of them lost to off-shoring. Noted economist Alan 
Blinder is estimating that the services sector may see between 
28 and 42 million jobs outsourced in coming years. While there 
is a raging debate in professional economic policy circles 
about the long-term net consequences of outsourcing, there is 
no debate that there are devastating consequences for working 
Americans, and sometimes entire communities, of jobs, plants 
and offices moving offshore.
    We believe that all Members of the Committee would agree 
that anything we can learn about what is causing firms to 
invest in facilities abroad, as opposed to modernizing or 
expanding operations domestically, may be useful in shaping 
policies to attract or retain jobs here. We want to have every 
bit of information at our disposal, especially as we work 
through the complicated elements of a competitiveness 
initiative that will cut across multiple Committee 
jurisdictions.
    As a consequence of report language included in the FY2004 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, the Department of Commerce 
Technology Administration directed its analysts to produce a 
report on ``the extent and implications of workforce 
globalization in knowledge-based industries such as life 
sciences, information technology, semiconductors and financial 
services.'' That report was due by June 23, 2004. $335,000 was 
earmarked for this study.
    At least five analysts at TA immediately began work on the 
report in January 2004, ultimately producing 4 draft chapters 
on semiconductors, information technology, pharmaceuticals and 
education and workforce preparation that totaled approximately 
200 pages in length. The analysts were told, in May 2004, to 
produce a summary of findings of their draft papers.
    The analysts were told to remove all citations and sourcing 
in their analytical reports. Those summaries were submitted to 
a ``team leader,'' (who has moved to another agency). The team 
leader then further edited the summary chapters and wrote an 
introduction. The total length of the report at that point was 
approximately 45 pages.
    This version of the report appears to have gone into the 
inter-agency and intra-agency clearance process. By March 2005, 
after having gone through undetermined edits in Commerce, it 
was just 14 pages in length. By September 2005, after ``final 
clearance,'' the Department of Commerce released a 12 page 
``summary'' of the report. Democratic Committee staff were told 
that the 12 page summary was actually composed during the late 
summer of 2005 and ``back-dated'' to June 23, 2004 to comply 
with the original report language from Appropriations. That 
summary was titled: ``Six-Month Assessment of Workforce 
Globalization in Certain Knowledge-Based Industries.''
    Subsequent to the release of the 12 page summary, analysts 
at TA, in varying degrees, indicated to Committee staff that 
the contents of the report did not accurately or completely 
reflect their findings. Further, of the 12 pages, 5 pages are 
occupied with a summary of general policy observations that no 
staff member at TA would identify as a TA work product.
    Democratic Members of the Science Committee have been 
interested in seeing this report for some time. In May 2005, 
Democratic Staff of the Science Committee asked the Commerce 
Department for the status of the off-shoring report and a 
briefing. Commerce Legislative Affairs never responded to the 
request (nor to subsequent requests during the summer).
    On August 3, 2005, Reps. Gordon, Costello and Wu sent a 
letter to Secretary Gutierrez asking him to release the 
report--now more than a year overdue--and also asking questions 
regarding why the report was so late. The Secretary did not 
respond.
    On October 11, 2005, Reps. Gordon, Costello and Wu sent a 
second letter to Secretary Gutierrez once again requesting a 
copy of the original draft report produced by TA analysts. No 
timely response was forthcoming.
    On December 23, 2005, then Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Technology Policy, Dan Caprio, sent a response to Mr. Gordon, 
Mr. Costello and Mr. Wu. That response thanked them for their 
``FOIA request,'' identified 157 documents that would be 
responsive and then claimed that not one page of those 
materials could be released to the Members due to predecisional 
exclusionary exemptions under FOIA. We do not consider a 
request by members of Congress to be a FOIA, but we note that 
this appears to have been an imperfect application of FOIA, or 
response to a FOIA request, in any case.
    On January 26, 2006, Rep. Gordon asked Chairman Boehlert to 
sign a document request to the Commerce Department requesting a 
copy of the draft report and other materials. Initially, the 
Chairman's staff asked us to withdraw the request pending their 
effort to simply call over to Commerce to get a copy of the 
draft report. In the spirit of compromise, we accepted their 
offer. Subsequently, the Republican staff communicated that 
Commerce did not want to give us the report, much less anything 
else, and Chairman Boehlert declined to sign the letter.
    On February 8, 2006 Reps. Gordon and Wu wrote to 
Subcommittee Chairman Ehlers, whose Subcommittee has direct 
jurisdiction over the Technology Administration, asking that he 
sign a request for the final draft report. Chairman Ehlers also 
declined.
    Finally, having exhausted all remedies, on March 9, 2006, 
Rep. Gordon introduced a Resolution of Inquiry (H. Res. 717) 
directing the Secretary of Commerce to deliver a copy of the 
final draft TA report/chapters, as prepared by the professional 
staff of the TA, to Congress. Our goal was to force the 
Department to divulge the draft ``chapters'' produced by the 
analysts. The Resolution was referred to the House Science 
Committee.
    The Committee's consideration of H. Res. 717 was flawed. 
One key claim of the Majority was that nothing could be learned 
from receiving the report since all of the data had been 
provided to the National Academy of Public Administration 
(NAPA) and NAPA was tasked with writing a definitive report on 
out-sourcing. While NAPA had a series of meetings with TA 
staff, everyone at Commerce that our staff interviewed agreed 
that no documents, no data, no analysis was ever provided to 
NAPA by TA.
    Further, even the NAPA report on off-shoring that appeared 
in January 2005 does not indicate that TA is a source for any 
of their materials, other than identifying them as a source for 
interviews. The NAPA report is interesting because it indicates 
that they could not find enough data to come to reliable 
conclusions about off-shoring, hardly the definitive study that 
the Members were told they were/had produced. While it is true 
that NAPA is to turn out two more reports in coming months, 
those studies are likely to focus on the wage effect of raising 
immigration levels in high technology fields and whether there 
is a shortage of scientists and engineers in the American 
workforce. In addition, in a letter to the Chairman, IEEE-USA 
stated, ``We believe that the report (Commerce) contains 
excellent indicators of trends that are not contained in any 
other government-funded study.'' That would include the 
National Academy of Public Administration's work.
    In the mark-up that occurred on March 29, 2006, the motion 
to adopt the Resolution failed on a party-line vote: 19-14. 
However, on a motion to report the Resolution adversely to the 
House, the motion failed on a 17-17 party-line tie. The 
Committee recessed subject to the call of the Chair.
    During the intervening days, Mr. Gordon made an offer to 
Mr. Boehlert that if the Chairman would commit to seeking the 
final, draft report/draft chapters as produced bythe 
professional staff of TA, the Ranking Member would give up filing 
further Resolutions of Inquiry or FOIA's on this matter during this 
Congress. A copy of that letter is attached to this report.
    During the mark-up, the Ranking Member stated he would 
oppose any Resolution of Inquiry or document request pertaining 
to this TA report if one would come to the Committee. Mr. 
Boehlert made representations to Mr. Gordon that he would 
accept that offer. Questions remain regarding what the nature 
of the document request language should be, but the Members 
agreed in a discussion prior to mark-up that they would work 
that out amicably.
    Following the conversation between the Chairman and Ranking 
Member, the Committee was brought back into session by the 
Chairman. After a brief exchange of views, the Committee 
reported H. Res. 717 by voice vote without recommendation. At 
the time of the voice vote, the Committee obviously lacked a 
quorum. Mr. Gordon refrained from making a point of order 
regarding a lack of a quorum to allow the Chairman to dispense 
with the H. Res. 717 in light of the representations made by 
the Chairman that a document request would be forthcoming if 
specific language could be developed.
    The Minority remain convinced that the process of scrubbing 
the original analysis out of subsequent drafts is a subject 
worthy of review by the Committee. This Administration has been 
dogged by accusations that expert reports raising facts and 
questions about preferred policy positions are often suppressed 
or edited to provide a more pleasing story. Scientific 
integrity questions apply to the social sciences as much as the 
physical or medical sciences.
    In the agreement offered by the Ranking Member, the 
Minority will set aside filing further Resolutions or a FOIA in 
this Congress regarding these issues in return for getting the 
richest set of information on outsourcing that we can get. Our 
Members are more interested in trying to understand how to help 
Americans keep jobs than in fixing blame for why this study has 
been suppressed. However, both questions are important and both 
worthy of a Committee to pursue in in an effort to improve the 
transparency and honesty of government.

                                   Bart Gordon.
                                   Jerry F. Costello.
                                   Eddie Bernice Johnson.
                                   Lynn C. Woolsey.
                                   Darlene Hooley.
                                   Mark Udall.
                                   David Wu.
                                   Michael M. Honda.
                                   Brad Miller.
                                   Lincoln Davis.
                                   Daniel Lipinski.
                                   Sheila Jackson-Lee.
                                   Brad Sherman.
                                   Brian Baird.
                                   Jim Matheson.
                                   Jim Costa.
                                   Al Green.
                                   Charlie Melancon.
                                   Dennis Moore.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                                      Committee on Science,
                                     Washington, DC, April 3, 2006.
Hon. Sherwood Boehlert,
Chairman, Committee on Science,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Boehlert: In the interest of working together 
on the growing problem of offshoring of America's high tech 
jobs, I want to offer a compromise solution that, I believe, 
addresses the objections you raised at the March 29 markup.
    Without arguing whether or not the National Academy of 
Public Administration actually received the data and analysis 
done by the Technology Administration, it seems to me that it 
is reasonable for our Committee to request and receive 
information that you indicate the Administration provided to an 
unelected third party.
    As to your principle concern that providing the 200-page 
draft report to the committee would simply trigger a ``fishing 
expedition'' on the part of the minority, I am offering not to 
initiate a Minority request for any further documents from the 
Department of Commerce during the 109th Congress relating to 
this report, provided a written request is jointly made by the 
Chairman and Ranking Member and the report is promptly provided 
pursuant to our request. The objection raised by you as to this 
being the * * * ``beginning of a prolonged fishing expedition 
that will raise all sorts of disputes related to Congressional 
access to Executive Branch deliberations,'' can then be set 
aside.
    To avoid further Committee disagreement and disharmony, I 
am agreeing not to initiate any further document requests on 
this matter as previously referenced. Therefore, the pending 
resolution, H. Res. 717, could be dispensed with in a 
bipartisan fashion and we could ``be working together to come 
up with ways to keep jobs in this country . . .'' as you stated 
March 29.
    Mr. Chairman, you stated in your remarks to the Committee 
that . . . ``if we were just going to ask for the report and be 
done with it, I might not object . . .'' Well, Mr. Chairman, 
that is just what I am proposing.
    I am hopeful that I can join you in signing a document 
request for the report so we can all see just what is contained 
in this body of work. My hope is that the analysis in the 200-
page draft will provide some insight and certainly some useful 
information on the problem we all agree is robbing America of 
some of the best jobs available to our citizens. Perhaps then 
we can come together and discuss strategies and solutions to 
this growing phenomenon that troubles us all.
    I hope to hear from you before Wednesday, April 5.
            Sincerely,
                                               Bart Gordon,
                                                    Ranking Member.

XV. PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP ON H. RES. 717, DIRECTING 
THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE TO TRANSMIT TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES A 
 COPY OF A WORKFORCE GLOBALIZATION FINAL DRAFT REPORT PRODUCED BY THE 
                       TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION

                              ----------                              


                       WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 2006

                  House of Representatives,
                                      Committee on Science,
                                                    Washington, DC.

    The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:30 a.m., in Room 
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood L. 
Boehlert [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Chairman Boehlert. Good morning. The Science Committee will 
come to order. Pursuant to notice, the Committee on Science 
meets today to consider the following measure, H. Res. 717, 
Directing the Secretary of Commerce to transmit to the House of 
Representatives a copy of a workforce globalization final draft 
report produced by the Technology Administration. I ask 
unanimous consent for the authority to recess the Committee at 
any point during consideration of these matters and without 
objection that it so ordered.
    We will now proceed with a markup beginning with opening 
statements. And I will begin, and then I will recognize Mr. 
Gordon for his comments and we will go from there. Let me 
welcome everyone here for what I hope will be a brief markup. 
Hope springs eternal. Or more accurately a brief interlude of 
partisan distraction in what is usually a bipartisan focused 
and very productive committee.
    I do not think we are dealing with a serious issue today, 
and I wish we did not have to spend any time on it but the 
Minority is prosecuting its rights under the House rule, and I 
jealously guard the rights of the Minority and we have no 
choice but to comply. I am going to speak for a while now to 
lay out my position clearly, which I hope will shorten the 
debate later.
    Let me start by pointing out what today's proceedings are 
not about. Today's debate is not about outsourcing, whether it 
is good or bad or what to do about it. First of all, there 
isn't a Member of Congress on either side of the aisle who 
would not like to see more jobs created and retained in this 
country. And in this committee we have taken many steps and 
will take more this year to try to accomplish that. The whole 
innovation debate is about finding ways to counter or 
compensate for outsourcing.
    But there is no policy at stake in the resolution before us 
today. It has nothing, I repeat, it has nothing to do with 
taking action in response to outsourcing. It is about, sad to 
say, personal point of view. It is about scoring political 
points related to a report. The release of that report would 
not create a single new job although its sponsors may hope to 
debate over it creates new jobs for some Democrat candidates.
    But it gets even more absurd. A release of this report not 
only wouldn't help us take action on outsourcing, it wouldn't 
even help us learn more about outsourcing. Everyone involved in 
preparing the report agrees that data on outsourcing was hard 
to come by given the resources and time that were available to 
prepare the document. Moreover, every bit of data, every bit of 
data that was gathered from the report was provided to the 
National Academy of Public Administration for its much more 
extensive probe into exactly the same questions.
    The first volume of the NAPA report has been released and 
two more are coming. The NAPA report was requested by exactly 
the same people who requested the Commerce Department report, 
and it will cover the same questions only with greater care and 
thoroughness so no one is being denied information about 
outsourcing. So what would be gained by seeking the Commerce 
Department documentation?
    Well, we have already ruled out either action or 
information so then what? Well, maybe we could raise questions 
about the judgment of the people who headed up the technology 
administration and oversaw the report. I question their 
judgment sometimes myself. But guess what? None of those people 
are still in government. There is nothing at stake in reviewing 
their actions. But someone could reasonably ask, okay, we don't 
gain anything by seeking the report but what is the harm?
    Why not just ask for it anyway? That is a fair question. 
And if we were just going to ask for the report and be done 
with it, I might not object, but this is a politically 
motivated request, and it is not going to stop with seeking 
this document. Indeed, the letters that the Minority has 
previously sent to the department show that this is just the 
beginning of a prolonged fishing expedition that will raise all 
sorts of disputes related to congressional access to executive 
branch deliberations.
    Now I am perfectly willing to challenge executive branch 
legal claims. We have done it successfully on this committee on 
both document and witness requests. But one does not get into 
such a dispute lightly. Real concerns need to be at stake, and 
you have to have a good case because any misstep becomes a 
precedent that can weaken future congresses. Here we don't have 
real concerns, so I am not willing to get into a drawn out 
legal dispute that could make it more difficult for Congress to 
get documents in the future on issues that really matter.
    One last point that is critical. The Minority may claim 
that what is at stake here is a pattern of suppression of 
information. That is a red herring. First of all, no 
information has been suppressed. It has all gone to NAPA. 
Moreover, the analysts have been available for interviews by 
those preparing the NAPA report. Second, this is not a case of 
a scientist reaching an uncomfortable conclusion and not being 
able to talk to the press. This is was a case of Congress 
requesting analysts to pull some data together. There are no 
conclusions that are being suppressed.
    Indeed, the Commerce Department has made, as I said 
earlier, the analysts available to not only NAPA but to the 
Minority staff as well as the Majority staff of this committee. 
Most of them even say that the short public report accurately 
captured their work. I don't think anyone can question my 
willingness to be vocal when an official in the Administration 
or the Congress tries to squelch the scientific inquiry or 
expression.
    As a matter of fact, I am in the front line defending those 
people who are scientists and want to speak out on their 
scientific inquiry and share with us and the world their 
thoughts. But that is not the case here. The public is not 
being denied the chance to hear about any information or 
theory. Now that does not mean that the Commerce Department 
does not bungle--did not bungle this whole thing. As a matter 
of fact, there is some evidence that it has not been handled in 
a way that all of us would consider to be the best.
    Exactly how or why the bungling occurred, I do not know. 
What I do know is that there are no consequences to that 
bungling. The debate on outsourcing has not been constrained or 
stifled, and no one who was directly involved is still in 
office. This resolution could have consequences. It could 
weaken future Congresses by forcing us to get into a document 
fight with the executive branch over nothing.
    So as I said at the outset, I hope we will defeat this 
quickly and put this political gamesmanship behind us. It is 
very clear in numerous ways that the Minority leader has 
instructed her Members to be more aggressive and 
obstructionists. When that is in pursuit of some real policy 
goal, I think it is fine. We need healthy debates around here. 
But when it is about spurious efforts to score political 
points, efforts that interfere with accomplishing real 
progress, that is inexcusable.
    The public ought to be offended that when we should be 
working together to come up with ways to keep jobs in this 
country we are instead fermenting needless fights across party 
lines that will make it harder to work together. I have opposed 
those kinds of tactics throughout my career, whatever their 
source, and I will oppose them today. I have been around this 
Floor a long time. I came to it 42 years ago as a young 
staffer, and for the past 24 it has been my privilege to be a 
Member.
    I have never seen the level of tolerance seek to lower 
depths. I have never seen partisanship rear its ugly head as 
much as it has in this current climate. I think the Nation and 
the institution loses under those circumstances. I do not want 
this great institution to lose. Mr. Gordon.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Boehlert follows:]
          Prepared Statement of Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert
    Let me welcome everyone here for what I hope will be a brief 
markup, or more accurately, a brief interlude of partisan distraction 
in what is usually a bipartisan, focused and productive Committee. I 
don't think we're dealing with a serious issue today, and I wish we 
didn't have to spend any time on it, but the minority is prosecuting 
its rights under the House rules, and we have no choice but to comply.
    I'm going to speak for a while now to lay out my position clearly, 
which I hope will shorten the debate later.
    Let me start by pointing out what today's proceedings are not 
about. Today's debate is not about outsourcing--whether it's good or 
bad, or what to do about it. First, there isn't a Member of Congress on 
either side of the aisle who would not like to see more jobs created 
and retained in this country. And in this committee, we've taken many 
steps--and will take more this year--to try to help accomplish that. 
The whole innovation debate is about finding ways to counter or 
compensate for outsourcing.
    But there's no policy at stake in the resolution before us today. 
It has nothing to do with taking action in response to outsourcing. 
It's only about scoring political points related to a report. The 
release of that report wouldn't create a single new job--although its 
sponsors may hope the debate over it creates new jobs for some Democrat 
candidates.
    But it gets even more absurd. The release of this report not only 
wouldn't help us take action on outsourcing, it wouldn't even help us 
learn more about outsourcing. Everyone involved in preparing the report 
agrees that data on outsourcing was hard to come by, given the 
resources and time that were available to prepare the document.
    Moreover, every bit of data that was gathered for the report was 
provided to the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) for 
its much more extensive probe into exactly the same questions. The 
first volume of the NAPA report has been released and two more are 
coming. The NAPA report was requested by exactly the same people who 
requested the Commerce Department report, and it will cover the same 
questions with greater care and thoroughness. So no one is being denied 
information about outsourcing.
    So what would be gained by seeking the Commerce Department 
document? Well, we've already ruled out either action or information, 
so then what? Well, maybe we could raise questions about the judgment 
of the people who headed up the Technology Administration and oversaw 
the report. But guess what? None of those people is still in the 
government. There is nothing at stake in reviewing their actions.
    But someone could reasonably ask, ``Okay, we don't gain anything by 
seeking the report, but what's the harm? Why not just ask for it 
anyway?''
    That's a fair question. And if we were just going to ask for the 
report and be done with it, I might not object. But this is a 
politically motivated request, and it's not going to stop with seeking 
this document. Indeed, the letters that the minority has previously 
sent to the Department show that this is just the beginning of a 
prolonged fishing expedition that will raise all sorts of disputes 
related to Congressional access to Executive Branch deliberations.
    Now I am perfectly willing to challenge Executive Branch legal 
claims. We've done it successfully on this Committee on both document 
and witness requests. But one doesn't get into such a dispute lightly.
    Real concerns need to be at stake and you have to have a good case 
because any misstep becomes a precedent that can weaken future 
Congresses. Here, we don't have real concerns, so I'm not willing to 
get into a drawn out legal dispute that could make it more difficult 
for Congress to get documents in the future on issues that matter.
    One last point that is critical. The minority may claim that what 
is at stake here is a pattern of suppression of information. But that 
is a ``red herring.'' First of all, no information has been suppressed; 
it has all gone to NAPA. Second, this is not a case of a scientist 
reaching an uncomfortable conclusion and not being able to talk to the 
press. This was a case of Congress requesting analysts to pull some 
data together. There are no conclusions that are being suppressed. 
Indeed, the Commerce Department has made the analysts available to the 
minority and majority staffs of this Committee. Most of them even say 
that the short, public report accurately captured their work.
    I don't think anyone can question my willingness to be vocal when 
an official--in the Administration or the Congress--tries to squelch 
scientific inquiry or expression. But that's not the case here. The 
public is not being denied the chance to hear about any information or 
theory.
    Now that doesn't mean that the Commerce Department didn't bungle 
this whole thing. Exactly how or why, I don't know. What I do know is 
that there are no consequences to that bungling. The debate on 
outsourcing has not been constrained or stifled. And no one who was 
directly involved is still in office.
    But this resolution could have consequences. It could weaken future 
Congresses by forcing us to get into a document fight with the 
Executive Branch over nothing.
    So as I said at the outset, I hope we will defeat this quickly and 
put this political gamesmanship behind us. It's very clear, in numerous 
ways, that the Minority Leader has instructed her Members to be more 
aggressive and obstructionist. When that's in pursuit of some real 
policy goal, that's fine; we need healthy debate around here. But when 
it's about spurious efforts to score political points--efforts that 
interfere with accomplishing real progress--that's inexcusable.
    The public ought to be offended that, when we should be working 
together to come up with ways to keep jobs in this country, we're 
instead fomenting needless fights across party lines that will make it 
harder to work together. I've opposed those kinds of tactics throughout 
my career, whatever their source. And I will oppose them today.
    Mr. Gordon.

    Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, let me 
thank you for scheduling this hearing for 10:30 this morning. 
Everyone here knows I start most of my remarks by saying I 
concur with the Chairman. Unfortunately, I cannot do that 
today. But nevertheless I do want to say that Sherwood Boehlert 
has served his country, his district and this Congress 
extraordinarily well for the last 42 years. We used to talk 
about Tip O'Neill being a man of the House. You are truly a man 
of the House.
    I have served in the Majority and I have served in the 
Minority, and I have never had a better relationship with the 
Chairman. I have never felt that I have been treated more 
fairly by a chairman. You are going to be missed. When you talk 
about the level of civility, your leaving does not improve it. 
I can assure you of that. So I just want to say thank you for a 
job well done.
    Chairman Boehlert. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, if I could, I would make one more 
request, and that is to be able to address the panel from the 
witness stand.
    Chairman Boehlert. You are on.
    Mr. Gordon. Thank you.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Chair recognizes the distinguished 
gentleman from Tennessee.
    Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really wanted to 
come down here because I do not consider this a partisan issue, 
and I want to talk about it just a moment. And I feel I need to 
start, and this is not a criticism, but it is a correction of 
an oversight, I think, that you were not aware of. In your 
testimony you said that moreover every bit of the data that was 
gathered for the report was provided to the National Academy of 
Public Administration for their much more extensive probe using 
the exact same information.
    We talked with the five preparers. They did not turn over 
the information. We talked with two political appointees. They 
said they did not turn over the information. If you look at the 
NAPA report, it was not sub-marked or whatever the term is. So 
anyway we need to get that corrected from the start. So why are 
we here? We are here today because of American jobs. And the 
Chairman made it very clear, and I agree with him, that all of 
us, Democrats and Republicans, are concerned about American 
jobs. We want to keep jobs here. Unfortunately, as Alan Binder 
mentioned the other day, he is the former Vice-Chairman of the 
Federal Reserve, he estimates that between 28 million and 42 
million American jobs, service sector jobs, are going to be 
off-shored in the next few years.
    That is on top of all manufacturing jobs that have left 
this country. And so what I hope this report will do is the 
same thing that we did with the Augustine report. When we 
received the Augustine report, it had some bad news. We were 
not afraid of it. We did not think it was a partisan jab. We 
embraced it. Two-thirds of the Members of the Senate took the 
Augustine report and made it into legislation.
    Here in the House I have introduced bipartisan legislation 
for the Augustine report. I think that is really what we are 
here about. And we are concerned about these jobs. Frank Wolf, 
in 19--or 2004, Frank Wolf, he did not request, he demanded 
really that the Commerce Department do a study. He provided and 
earmarked $335,000, and here is what he requested from the 
Commerce Department. Do a study on the extent and implications 
of workforce globalization and knowledge-based industries such 
as life science, information technology, semiconductors and 
financial services, and he asked that that report be made 
available by June 23, 2004.
    I am not going to take the time today to go through the 
chronology. With your permission, we will put it on your desk 
and it has been given to your staff. But we have a chronology 
going back to May, 2005. We have requested over and over and 
over this information. Most of the time we are not even given a 
courtesy of a no. We do not get anything. Finally, there was a 
12-page summary that was provided that said something to the 
effect there are some good things and some bad things about 
outsourcing. That is all we have, and NAPA--and, again, I know 
it is not intentional but NAPA did not receive this information 
according to the folks that we have talked to.
    Now what about embarrassing the President? The President 
was in India two weeks ago and said what we already know, that 
there is outsourcing going on. I mean there is no embarrassment 
to this. The Augustine report was not an embarrassment. It was 
an effort to try to do something positive. I do not think we 
are going to see anything shocking here.
    I was talking to a Member of your committee, I am not going 
to embarrass by mentioning him now, who told me the other day, 
you know, your request is very reasonable and I intend to vote 
for it unless it is political. Well, I am here to plead guilty. 
My request is political but the politics is not Democrats 
versus Republicans. The politics is this. I think the 
legislative branch ought to be an equal branch and I think that 
when we request information and use taxpayers dollars to pay 
for it, we ought to be able to get that information.
    Now you might just keep one thing in mind. It is not 
unreasonable that within your lifetime there might be a 
democratic administration, and you might want some reasonable 
information that the taxpayer paid for that you requested. I 
think this is a bad precedent. And I will tell you, and I am 
going to plead guilty again, it is political. It is political 
with me because in my district at home we have lost a lot of 
jobs, and folks at home, they do not want me to say it is the 
President's fault, it is the Republicans' fault. They want me 
to give them some solutions. They want me to talk about what I 
am doing.
    That is the reason I took the Augustine report and tried to 
make it into legislation that we can do something. I am hoping 
that we are going to find some similar suggestions within this 
report so that I can show my constituents that I am trying to 
do something. That is the politics, and I think you would want 
to be in those politics too. And so then the real question goes 
back, well, this all sounds pretty reasonable but there is 
always two sides, and so what is going on here.
    I am trying to figure that out too. I tell you the best 
thing that I can figure out, and I may be wrong and I will 
welcome someone telling me differently, I think what is going 
on here is the same thing that we saw in NASA a while back. You 
had some middle level political hack that thought he was doing 
the Administration a favor by censoring information from the 
scientists that he thought was not consistent with the White 
House Message.
    Well, once that got out there was a lot of hubbub. Director 
Griffin did exactly what he should. He said that is not what we 
are here for. The guy is out of here. The issue has gone away. 
I think you have got some middle level guy over there who 
thinks he is doing somebody some favor because this report will 
probably mention there is outsourcing going on. And if anyone 
is going to be shocked about that, you know, you must be 
shocked. I mean I am not particularly.
    So we need to get this issue behind us. And let me say this 
too. I know you wish that we could take this vote today and it 
would be over with. I can tell you honestly, Nancy Pelosi or 
anybody else in leadership has not asked me to do anything 
about this. I doubt she even knows that this report exists. But 
this is not going away today. We are going to bring this more 
again here. We are going to make a motion to recommit because I 
really--first of all, I will just say the P word, that anybody 
much like Branch would be treated this way. This is information 
that we need to do our job, and I intend to try to get that 
information.
    So with that, again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the 
courtesy. I bet I run over my five minutes and you did not say 
a word. You are fair and honest and good, and I appreciate the 
opportunity to make this presentation to you this morning.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon follows:]
            Prepared Statement of Representative Bart Gordon
    We all care about American jobs. Since the beginning of 2001, this 
country has lost almost three million manufacturing jobs. When a 
manufacturing plant is closed or down-sized, scientists and engineers 
lose their job too. Over 50 percent of the engineers employed in 
America work in manufacturing facilities.
    So as this committee prepares to move legislation addressing what 
we should do about American competitiveness and how do we attract young 
people to engineering and science, it seems absolutely essential that 
we have all the information at our disposal to guide our work.
    I suppose some might say that they are not worried about jobs 
moving overseas. But I know that for communities in Michigan and New 
York and Texas, where half a million manufacturing jobs have been lost, 
or in my home State of Tennessee, which has seen 62,000 jobs blow away, 
it is a very real problem.
    If you are not worried, I think you should be. Up to now, we have 
all thought about off-shoring being largely confined to manufacturing. 
But Alan Blinder, the former Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve, has 
estimated that between 28 and 42 million American jobs in the service 
sector may be off-shored in the next few years.
    In 2004, the Commerce Department's Technology Administration (TA) 
produced a report on what is happening to the workforce as a result of 
changes in information technology and services, pharmaceuticals and 
semiconductors. They also produced an analysis of the education and 
training programs in other countries for ``knowledge'' workers. That 
report, as produced by the TA analysts, was approximately 200 pages in 
length. Fifteen months after it was due, the Department finally 
released a 12-page report summary.
    My staff has interviewed the staff of TA who worked on the original 
report. Some of the analysts feel that the report does not accurately 
reflect their case study findings. None of the analysts even know where 
the five page introduction came from.
    The analysts have never been able to show their original chapters 
to anyone outside the department, not even NAPA which is supposed to 
pick up where the TA staff left off. It is hard to see how they could 
pick up where TA left off when TA wasn't allowed to give them their 
original research. Further, lest you believe the quiet whispers from 
some Commerce Department appointees that the report was badly done, 
Members should know that analysts received a performance bonus after 
completing it.
    I have been trying to get the original draft report for almost a 
year through every means available to me, but I have not been able to 
get the Chairman of this committee or the Subcommittee of jurisdiction 
to join me. It was with some reluctance that I filed a Resolution of 
Inquiry about this report to force the Committee to face up to its 
responsibility to learn as much as we can about what is happening to 
American jobs.
    This committee has jurisdiction over the Technology Administration. 
We know they spent $335,000 producing their report. The American 
public, and this committee, deserve to see the full results of their 
work.
    It is hard to see how we can be serious as a committee about saying 
we want to address our competitive position if, in the next breath, we 
say we don't want to see the most sophisticated analysis done by the 
government about what is happening with American jobs in high-tech 
fields.
    The Chairman has claimed he has determined that this matter is not 
of high priority for the Committee. I can't speak for others, but for 
my constituents, jobs is their number one issue. Last week a national 
poll found that outsourcing of jobs is the number one concern for 
people around the country, out-polling even the war in Iraq as an issue 
of concern. All I ask of the Chairman is to sign a letter asking for 
this report in its fullest draft form. How can the Committee be so busy 
that signing a letter is too burdensome? Why don't we want to learn 
everything we can, from any source, about trends that are driving 
Americans to worry about the future of their employment chances?
    The Chairman claims that the NAPA study will answer all our 
questions so examining the work of Commerce is unnecessary. Well, as I 
said, NAPA was not privileged to get access to the work of Commerce and 
so they are unaware of the research findings of TA. Further, NAPA put 
out their first report in January and concluded they didn't have enough 
data to say anything conclusive about off-shoring and more research is 
needed.
    NAPA has promised at least two more reports, but according to their 
staff these are likely to focus more on whether the U.S. has a shortage 
of scientists and engineers and whether H-1B/L-1 scientists and 
engineers depress wages for American technical workers rather than 
delve more deeply into off-shoring. Finally, even if NAPA were to do 
this work, why would that be an argument not to see what our own 
government's analysts, using tax dollars, found when they investigated 
the issue? I don't know how else to say it, but what NAPA is or isn't 
doing is a red herring in this argument.
    We should get a copy of the full report. This is a necessary step 
to inform our legislative record and to carry out our oversight 
responsibility over the Executive branch.
    If you care about keeping good, high-paying jobs in the U.S. and 
believe we need to base policy on as much information as possible, then 
please join me in supporting this resolution. If you think the loss of 
jobs is not something to worry about then oppose my amendments.
    If you care about protecting the right of Congress to stand up to 
the Executive and ask for documents and accountability for tax-dollars 
spent, you should support this resolution. If you just want to trust 
someone who whispers in our ear that you don't really need to know what 
government experts have to say--from the same folks who brought you the 
Dubai ports deal, have refused Republican Senators information related 
to Hurricane Katrina and have refused to stay at Senate hearings to 
answer questions--then oppose this resolution.

    Chairman Boehlert. Thanks very much, Mr. Gordon. Just let 
me respond with a couple of thoughts to your message. First of 
all, the analyst in the Department of Commerce within the 
Technology Administration has been interviewed not once, not 
twice, not three times, but at least four times by the people 
developing the NAPA report. There is nothing that they asked 
for that they did not get. They tell us they have all the 
information they need to advance with this three-volume report 
that they are going to produce, the first volume of which is 
now public.
    Secondly, this is not about outsourcing. Guess what? I am 
opposed vigorously to so much of the outsourcing that has taken 
place, and one of the reasons we have worked so well in this 
committee and so well with the authors of the academies rising 
above the gathering storm is because we want to enhance our 
competitive position in the global marketplace. And the jobs 
that you are talking about going overseas are jobs that concern 
each and every Member of this panel. Mr. Costello has been 
particularly vociferous about that.
    So I want to make sure everyone understands this is not 
about whether or not you are for outsourcing. This is about how 
one department, one section of one department, handled or 
mishandled the internal flow of paperwork and draft documents, 
and that is what it is about, sum and substance. If your 
concern is about outsourcing, you should be as enthused as I am 
about the NAPA report and anxiously waiting volumes two and 
three of their total report. It is something that is difficult 
to deal with to pinpoint exactly precise information. GAO says 
the same thing. NAPA says the same thing. I think we all can 
acknowledge that.
    We all want to get our arms around it and be able to 
clearly define the problem. But that is not what this is all 
about today. This is about the internal workings of one agency 
of the Federal Government and how they handled or mishandled 
the request from the Hill. So with that, is there anyone else 
who seeks recognition?
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]
         Prepared Statement of Representative Jerry F. Costello
    Thank you Mr. Chairman. As you may know, Ranking Member Gordon is 
on his way to the markup and I am pleased to have this opportunity to 
preside until he arrives. Today our committee will have the opportunity 
to discuss and vote on a very important issue that affects my 
congressional district in Southern Illinois and every congressional 
district in the country. The issue I speak of is job stability and 
employment prospects. Over the last five years, 158,800 manufacturing 
jobs have been lost in Illinois, adding to the national total of nearly 
three million manufacturing jobs lost since 2001. Many additional jobs 
have been lost in the service industry, just look at the growth of IT 
help desks in India for an example of this. The future employment in 
America and the current experiences of our workers and families is a 
high priority for me. We need to have a better understanding of why are 
jobs going off-shore? Why are manufacturing jobs declining? Why is our 
workforce losing its competitive edge in the global marketplace?
    As a matter of fact, Congress has asked for specific details and 
information from federal experts on this alarming trend. As you may 
recall, Congress passed a Consolidated Appropriations bill in fiscal 
year 2004 that directed the Technology Administration to undertake a 
study on ``the extent and implications of workforce globalization in 
knowledge-based industries such as life science, information 
technology, semiconductors and financial services.'' The report was due 
by June 23, 2004, and a 200-page report that represents the most 
sophisticated examination yet by federal experts on the trend of jobs 
moving off-shore was completed, with taxpayer money. However, the 
Department of Commerce refuses to hand over the draft report. Instead, 
they have released a 12-page summary that reportedly scrubs out ``bad 
news'' observations from the larger report. We want to see the original 
200-page draft Technology Administration report to better understand 
why American jobs are moving off-shore. For almost a year, Democrats 
have been asking for the Commerce report at the staff level and then 
sent a letter to the Secretary of Commerce asking for the report. 
Commerce did not respond. Ranking Member Gordon, Congressman Wu, and 
myself have asked Chairman Boehlert and Congressman Ehlers to cosign a 
letter asking for the release of the final Commerce report--they were 
not willing to sign. The resolution of inquiry is the final effort to 
get the report released. It is not meant to embarrass anyone, just to 
let us have access to a report funded by taxpayer dollars. The 
resolution simply asks the Secretary of Commerce to transmit a copy of 
the workforce globalization final draft report produced by the 
Technology Administration to the House of Representatives. This is an 
issue of Congressional versus Executive Branch authority. Why can't we 
simply examine a report done by Commerce Department analysts? Why 
should we show such deference to the Administration in their refusal to 
provide us with the report? This is exactly the kind of work the 
committees are supposed to engage in. Let's do our jobs for the 
American people. As Congress works to improve America's competitive 
position globally, information is our best weapon. Uncovering the 
driving forces pushing American jobs to foreign countries is 
information Congress must have as we push for solutions to help 
hardworking Americans. Mr. Chairman, my constituents deserve to know 
the facts on an issue where data is sorely lacking. As we work toward a 
smarter, sharper and more competitive workforce, it only makes sense 
that we have access to the best information. The Technology 
Administration report is the most complete analysis by any government 
agency of this phenomenon. I urge my colleagues to support the 
resolution of inquiry.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
       Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
    The House Committee on Science has had a long-standing interest in 
directing policies that grow and sustain a high-technology workforce.
    High-tech jobs foster a better quality of life for Americans and 
offer higher pay, better benefits and greater job stability.
    In recent years, numerous reports have asserted that America is 
losing jobs--both blue collar and high-tech positions. Outsourcing has 
greatly diminished our manufacturing sector. Nations such as India have 
surpassed us in the information technology service industry.
    No states have felt the pinch of the loss of outsourced high-tech 
jobs as acutely as the states of California and my home State of Texas.
    Last year the American Electronics Association released a report 
saying that all but four states experienced a loss of high-tech jobs. 
The biggest losers were California, which cut 67,800 jobs in 2003, 
followed by Texas, which lost 32,900 high-tech jobs due to outsourcing.
    Congress has asked for credible information as to the true 
situation regarding outsourcing of jobs. The Department of Commerce, a 
federal agency funded by the American public, has performed an 
investigation as to this very issue.
    At a cost of $335,000 taxpayer dollars, the Department of Commerce 
Technology Administration assigned at least five analysts for six 
months to produce a report on the status of U.S. employment in 
knowledge-intensive industries.
    Mr. Chairman, the American public has paid for a study on high-tech 
job outsourcing, but for some reason, the Technology Administration 
will not release this report.
    While it is unfortunate that the Committee will not work in a 
bipartisan fashion to request this report, I support Ranking Member 
Gordon's premise that $335,000 in taxpayer dollars should not be 
wasted. I will support this Resolution of Inquiry on principle.
    My constituents, and every Member's constituents in this room, 
deserve access to the Technology Administration's report.
    The data in that report can help Members of Congress enact well-
informed policies to bring high-tech jobs back home--where they belong.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the remainder of my time.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Wu follows:]
             Prepared Statement of Representative David Wu
    Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. It amazes me that a 
simple request for a report, that we rightfully have jurisdiction over, 
can come up against such fierce opposition. The United States is losing 
jobs to off-shoring as we speak, and this report sheds light on the 
reasons why. It also may not provide any more information than what we 
already know, but isn't the point that we get a chance to find out?
    This is a matter of good governance. We need to be able to stay 
informed with the most up-to-date and in-depth information out there. 
We also need the chance to judge for ourselves whether the importance 
of certain data is valid. Any less would be neglecting our duties.
    It also troubles me to learn about the process in which a detailed, 
thorough 200-page report gets chopped down to a 12-page summary. Who or 
what was the impetus of this action? And who had oversight to what 
information was omitted or retained? What is in there that is so 
important to hide and for us not to see? There is no way to know until 
we see the original draft.
    As I have stated before, I am very disturbed by the continuing 
reports of manipulation of science advisory committees, suppression of 
information, and censorship of federal scientists. These reports are 
not restricted to one agency or department and they encompass a wide-
range of topic areas. Although the Administration claims these events 
are random, the sheer number and distribution of complaints across the 
Federal Government suggests an overall political agenda to science. It 
is unfortunate that we seem to be facing a similar situation today 
under our own roof, our own jurisdiction.
    I have spoken in Committee with witnesses concerning the issue of 
scientific integrity including Mr. Jeff Ruch from Public Employees for 
Environmental Responsibility on March 16th. He spoke of reports 
languishing in the Environmental Protection Agency, and other agencies, 
for many years. Why does that withholding or delaying problem seem 
oddly resonant with this current report about off-shoring?
    A more egregious example of how this intimidation can affect 
research for policy is with the graduate student at Oregon State 
University who was basically persecuted for telling the truth with his 
findings. His research showed conclusions that went against established 
practice of the Bureau of Land Management. In return the BLM decided to 
freeze the grant behind that particular OSU study. After a national 
firestorm of protest, the BLM reinstated the funding, but this shows 
how politically motivated research funding has become.
    It is time that we end this big brother choke-hold on science and 
scientists. It is time for the truth to come out unfettered. We have a 
job to do here in this committee. So let us do it. I urge my colleagues 
to vote to report this resolution of inquiry favorably to the House.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Honda follows:]
         Prepared Statement of Representative Michael M. Honda
    Ordinarily I would thank the Chairman for holding this hearing 
today, but I know that he would rather not be doing, that we are here 
today only because the Rules of the House dictate that the Committee 
must act on this resolution.
    I cannot understand why the Chairman has taken this position, 
however. All we are asking for with this resolution is to read a report 
paid for by the American taxpayers, that was written by United States 
government employees, at the request of Member of Congress.
    The report pertains to a vitally important topic, the outsourcing 
of U.S. jobs. In my congressional district, many manufacturing and high 
tech workers have lost their jobs since President Bush took office, and 
many of those jobs are believed to have been moved overseas. Many 
questions remain about the number of jobs that have been outsourced, 
why jobs are being outsourced, and what we might do in terms of policy 
to reverse this disturbing trend. The report by the Department of 
Commerce's Technology Administration we are seeking access to, ``Six-
Month Assessment of Workforce Globalization in Certain Knowledge-Based 
Industries,'' can provide valuable insight into this issue.
    As we develop legislation to ensure U.S. competitiveness in a 
global economy, we should gather information from every source 
possible, especially one prepared by our own government using taxpayer 
funds at the request of this body. The Department of Commerce must have 
thought highly of the work, since it gave those who worked on it 
bonuses. And yet for some reason we find our Chairman failing to do the 
oversight we are charged with as part of our job as Members of Congress 
and not seeking a report prepared by a federal agency.
    I am baffled at how any Member of this committee could vote against 
this resolution, which simply seeks to ensure that we have access to 
all of the information possible as we develop legislation to address 
the problem highlighted in this report. To do so is to ignore our 
responsibility as Members of Congress to exert oversight over the 
Executive Branch.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
        Prepared Statement of Representative Sheila Jackson Lee
    Chairman Boehlert, Ranking Member Gordon, thank you for organizing 
this important hearing to discuss this bill, H. Res. 717, Directing the 
Secretary of Commerce to transmit to the House of Representatives a 
copy of a workforce globalization final draft report produced by the 
Technology Administration.
    This committee has gathered today because the Administration is so 
fearful of isolationism and protectionism that they won't even release 
a completed report on the subject that has already been conducted. We 
have only seen 12 pages of the final 200-page report that cost 
taxpayers $335,000. I do not understand the motivation behind keeping 
Congress in the dark as it relates to the American economy and American 
jobs. This committee has not gathered to debate a legislative response 
to off-shoring; we are only asking that we be allowed to be fully 
educated on the issue so that our future course of action is based upon 
good and full information. I feel that we deserve the full truth about 
this issue.
    Specifically, the report is the most thorough examination to date 
by the U.S. Government examining the factors driving U.S. jobs ``off-
shore.'' We do not have more information on what those factors are, 
because we have not seen the report.
    President Bush recently said in a press conference ``we shouldn't 
allow isolationism and protectionism to overwhelm us.'' This statement, 
which echoed the President's statements in the State of the Union 
address, should be agreed upon by Members from both sides of the aisle. 
Few believe that America should shut its doors to the great tide of 
globalization and all the prosperity it offers. But globalization can 
often come at a price, and the actions that Congress takes must be 
carefully weighed in order to ensure fairness in the process. For 
example, globalization must never be allowed to take precedent over 
American security, and U.S. companies should not be given extra 
incentive for relocating jobs abroad. Further, the United States policy 
should never encourage developing nations to destroy their land through 
irresponsible environmental action, or abuse their population by 
subjecting them to child-slave labor or inhumane working conditions.
    As it relates to the report in question, some U.S. policies are 
reported to actually encourage and reward overseas investments. For 
example:

          The relatively weak requirements for U.S. firms, 
        compared with European counterparts, to pay severance or 
        negotiate with unions over plans to move jobs overseas.

          Overseas Private Investment Corporation insurance for 
        corporations investing abroad.

          Treaties that protect U.S. investors against host-
        government actions--including public interest laws--that 
        diminish profits.

    As Congress works to improve America's competitive position 
globally, information is our best weapon. Uncovering the driving forces 
pushing American jobs to foreign countries is information Congress must 
have as we work toward solutions to help hardworking Americans.
    Job stability and employment prospects affect every single 
American. My constituents, indeed, ALL AMERICANS, deserve to know the 
facts on an issue where data is sorely lacking. As we continue to 
evolve into a smarter, sharper and more competitive American workforce, 
it only makes sense that we have access to the best information. I urge 
my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to put aside our partisan 
differences and vote to compel the Secretary of Commerce to release the 
full draft report. Thank you, and I yield the remainder of my time.

    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Boehlert. Yes, Mr. Costello.
    Mr. Costello. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Boehlert. The gentleman is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I have 
to tell you that I take issue with the spin put on this that 
this is partisan, that we are doing this for political reasons. 
We have had both private conversations and we have had 
amendments here in committee and on the Floor concerning the 
issue of outsourcing. We are not attempting to blame this 
Administration or any one administration but to try and gather 
facts, figures and reasons as to why we are losing jobs in the 
United States to other countries.
    This Congress, in fact, ordered the Department of Commerce 
to prepare a report concerning specific issues concerning 
outsourcing. The Appropriations Committee and my friend, Mr. 
Gordon, referred to an appropriation of $335,000. The 
Appropriations Committee set aside, earmarked $335,000 for the 
Department of Commerce to prepare this report. They put 
together a 200-page report, and they have refused to turn that 
report over to the Appropriations Committee, this committee, or 
to the Congress of the United States.
    So the issue is really not about outsourcing. It is about 
getting the information that this Congress has requested and 
the American taxpayers have paid for, information that was put 
together by a federal agency and paid for by the taxpayers. It 
is incredible to me, Mr. Chairman, that either you or anyone in 
the Congress would say that it is okay for a federal agency to 
stonewall and to refuse to release a report to the Congress 
that ordered the report and was paid for with taxpayers money 
to say that, well, they have turned the information over to 
NAPA, which we believe they have not.
    They turned a 12-page summary of that report over to NAPA. 
Our staff has interviewed a number of people, analysts and 
others over at NAPA. They have told us that the report in its 
entirety was not turned over to NAPA, that in fact they got a 
12-page summary, the same summary that we received. So it is 
incredible to me that any Member of this committee or the 
Congress would say, first of all, we are taking $335,000 of the 
taxpayers money, ordering a federal agency to put together a 
report. After the report is completed, they refuse to turn the 
report over to this Congress or this committee of jurisdiction.
    And I would also say, Mr. Chairman, and ask that the letter 
directed to you yesterday, the 28th of March, 2006, by the 
IEEE, the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 
Incorporated where they are supporting this resolution, and I 
would read excerpts from their letter to every Member of this 
committee. The IEEE USA supports this resolution requesting 
that the Commerce Department release the draft report.
    And then I would refer to another paragraph where it says 
all the information the government has collected on this matter 
should be released. The report is indeed a valuable resource 
for our Members who need to make informed choices on their 
continuing education and career paths. We believe the report 
contains excellent indicators of trends that are not contained 
in any other government-funded study.
    Let me repeat that. We believe that the report contains 
excellent indicators of trends that are not contained in any 
other government-funded study, including the recent National 
Academy of Public Administration reports. Mr. Chairman, I would 
ask that this letter be placed into the record, and I would 
urge my colleagues to support this resolution, to vote in favor 
of the resolution that merely says to a federal agency under 
the jurisdiction of this committee to release a report that 
they have been stonewalling for a number of months now paid for 
by the taxpayers and ordered by the Congress of the United 
States.
    Chairman Boehlert. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information follows:]
    
    

    Chairman Boehlert. Let me respond in a couple of ways. One, 
I want everyone to understand that there is no indication that 
$335,000 was spent. The language actually said of the monies 
appropriated no more than $335,000 could be spent on the 
preparation of some sort of a report. Secondly, all the 
analysts were already on the job working within the Technology 
Administration at the Department of Commerce so there wasn't 
any outside hires or anything else.
    Third, and very important, $2 million was made available 
for the NAPA report. The NAPA once again, I want to emphasize 
this, in the preparation of its three-volume report was able to 
interview all the analysts that work on this internal document 
floating around the Commerce Department, incidentally, 200 
pages of raw data. A draft report was 45 pages, and then that 
was sent out for vetting as the normal process within the 
executive branch, and people looked at it and said, wait a 
minute, this isn't right or, wait a minute, that is not right.
    So they had some legitimate questions so there was never a 
final report produced. There was an executive summary. And the 
person who initiated the whole action because he is as 
concerned about outsourcing as you, as Mr. Gordon, as I am. Mr. 
Wolf is fully satisfied that the NAPA report is going to give 
him all the information he needs, and he is the one that 
generated the whole thing. So that is where we are. Is there 
anyone else? Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Boehlert. The gentleman is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, first of all, let me note that I 
will be supporting the request of the Chairman and following 
his lead, but I do so reluctantly and as a matter of 
obligation, I would say, as a loyal Member of this side of the 
aisle. But with that said, let me note that I find the request 
that is being made and the debate that is taking place gives me 
a lot of sympathy with people on the other side of the aisle.
    I would say that the argument--if I was just going by the 
arguments, I would be voting with the other side of the aisle 
on this question. But there is--when I first came to Congress 
18 years ago the Speaker of the House at that time, Jim Wright, 
came to the freshmen Members and said, you know, those of you 
who think you can separate politics from democracy have got a 
lot to learn. And I was outraged, of course, when I heard that 
but over the years I have come to realize that that was a true 
analysis, and he was trying to be sincere with us when he 
suggested that.
    And that is nothing that we should be ashamed of. The fact 
is that democracy and politics are tied, and perhaps that is 
one of the flaws of democracy. That still doesn't mean that we 
are not the best system. You know, democratic government is not 
the best system in the world as compared to the alternatives 
but perhaps the fact that there are politics so tied to it that 
there is a flaw. But politics also gives an energy to a 
democratic system that perhaps simply the search for 
responsible government decision making wouldn't give that same 
energy to this process.
    So I don't think that just a claim of political 
gamesmanship or partisanship over a request is enough to negate 
the validity of a request because there is political 
partisanship and gamesmanship on both sides of the aisle. And I 
happen to find this Administration be somewhat more arrogant 
and restrictive than I feel comfortable with, quite frankly. In 
some of the areas of national security, I know that we have got 
to be a little bit more restrictive, and we got to make sure we 
overpower the instincts for political gamesmanship to make sure 
that our national security isn't hurt.
    In areas beyond national security, I think that the 
Administration has been overly restrictive, and I think that 
this request--the denial of this request and this reaction to 
this request indicates that there is something wrong on our 
side of this debate. I look at--let me just note. Maybe it was, 
and I will say to Mr. Gordon and I am sure he understands why I 
will be supporting the Chairman, some day I am sure he would 
like to be chairman and have his people support him on his 
request as well.
    I, of course, hope that isn't the case but that is all part 
of the process that we all are participating in. But it may not 
be that the mid-level political hack tried to censor something. 
It might be that a scientist who was a liberal left scientist 
or analyst or economist produced something, some kind of 
report, based on politics on that individual, and that were 
trying to negate a political move that way. Whatever the 
motives, that is not what is the question here. What the 
question is what the process will be, and whether or not when 
requests are made, as Mr. Gordon has said, when requests are 
made in the future will we as Republicans when we are in the 
Minority expect to get information that we need in order to 
make it part of the public debate, and I think we will.
    And that is why if I was making this decision, I would not 
have made the same decision as the Chairman. So with all of 
that sort of scattered logic, I will be supporting the 
Chairman. I don't believe--let me just say one thing about 
globalization, one last thought here. And I saw the map, and I 
think it is something we need to be concerned about when we are 
talking about this outsourcing because it too is a byproduct of 
globalization, which I think our country has rushed into 
without regard to what kind of effect it will have on the 
prosperity or the rights, economic and political rights, of our 
own people.
    And I think it deserves a lot more examination than it is 
been given. And finally let me just note that that is not the 
only issue that at times have been ignored for political 
reasons. I think the illegal immigration issue is something 
that has been ignored by both parties but especially my friends 
on the other side of the aisle have ignored illegal 
immigration, and that has a far worse economic consequence than 
outsourcing to the pay level and the jobs available to American 
working people. And with that said, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. It is very 
obvious that we have under consideration H. Res. 717. Before 
proceeding, I should ask unanimous consent that the resolution 
be considered as open--read and open to amendment at any point, 
and without objection so ordered. So we will continue. Mr. 
Moore.
    Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to join Mr. 
Gordon in commending you on your service to our country and 
this committee over the years, and you have been extremely fair 
although I do disagree with you on this particular issue and 
Mr. Rohrabacher as well, whom I have tremendous respect for. 
And I just want to say this. When we get down to political 
positions, I think absent national security concerns we should 
any time taxpayers money is used in the production of a report, 
we should first and foremost always respect the right of 
taxpayers to know what that money was used for and see a copy 
of that report.
    And I think political considerations should be put aside 
here and for the reason that taxpayers money was used, whether 
it was $335,000 or $3,000. I think the public--transparency is 
important here. The light should shine in, and the public 
should be entitled including Members of Congress to know what 
was in that report. And for that reason, I respectfully 
disagree with the Chairman's ruling. Thank you.
    Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Boehlert. The gentlelady is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Woolsey. Mr. Chairman, I want to go on record being 
very sorry that you are leaving. We need your ideas. We need 
your vision. We need your genuine concern for our environment 
and the science that supports protecting it. And given just how 
much I respect you, I am really totally surprised that this 
issue today was not taken up voluntarily, that Ranking Member 
Bart Gordon had to actually force the debate.
    Listen to the facts. According to a recent study by the 
University of California-Berkeley, the United States is at risk 
of losing as many as 14 million jobs over the next ten years as 
a result of the new outsourcing trends. The types of jobs at 
risk include those in accounting, business processing 
outsourcing, information technology, strategy consulting, asset 
management, investment banking, commercial banking, retail 
banking, et cetera, et cetera, and the jobs that do remain in 
the United States the studies find will suffer from the 
pressures of decreased wages and benefits in order to keep pace 
with low wage countries.
    Another study by Input Research addressed outsourcing at 
the State and local levels. This study projected that the 
outsourcing of State and local government technology contracts 
will grow from $10 billion in 2005 to $23 billion in 2008. It 
is with these facts in mind that I support the effort of my 
colleague, Ranking Member Bart Gordon, to obtain the as yet 
unreleased outsourcing report produced by analysts of the 
Department of Commerce's Technology Administration in 2004. 
This report is the most comprehensive study to date analyzing 
the factors that have led the U.S. jobs--led U.S. jobs to other 
countries.
    The original report produced by the Technology 
Administration came to nearly 200 pages in length, $335,000 in 
production cost maximum, as you said, yet all that was released 
to the public is a 12-page summary that seems to have 
mischaracterized the actual findings of the full report. Mr. 
Chairman, if we are not going to spend--if we are going to 
spend nearly a half a million dollars on a book-length report 
about American jobs the least we can do is make the information 
publicly available. They paid for it, for heaven's sake, and 
let every American know exactly how and why their jobs are 
going overseas. Let's do our job. Let's bring the information 
to light. I yield back.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you. Let me once again emphasize 
something. I am almost tempted to say I have an amendment at 
the desk. The amendment would outlaw outsourcing. All in favor 
say aye. There would be no ayes. Opposed. Give me a break. We 
are all concerned about outsourcing. This is not a debate about 
whether or not the United States of America is witnessing the 
outsourcing of too many jobs. We all agree to that. We all are 
part of trying to provide solutions to the very real problem. 
What this is about is 200 pages of raw data being circulated in 
one section of one agency and then being condensed into a 45-
page draft report, and then as all agencies do, they send it 
out to various sections. Before we put out informata on there 
let us examine it and people look at it and say, wait a minute, 
this is questionable. Wait a minute, I don't know about the 
documentation there. And that is what it is all about.
    What we are really interested in is the NAPA report. That 
is a $2 million report. NAPA is an independent agency, not a 
part of any government, independent. NAPA has made available to 
it and to its people preparing the report all the analysts 
within the Department of Commerce who worked on it. They said 
they haven't been denied any information at all. They have 
everything that they needed to prepare a much more 
comprehensive report and therefore much more valuable report to 
all of us who are legitimately concerned about outsourcing.
    So I just want to disabuse anybody who might have the 
misunderstanding what we are talking about outsourcing, whether 
or not we are for or against outsourcing. That is not what it 
is all about at all.
    Ms. Woolsey. Would the gentleman yield?
    Chairman Boehlert. I would be glad to yield to the 
distinguished gentlelady.
    Ms. Woolsey. Okay, now I am going to get a little 
political. Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of reports that have 
come out in this country in the last few years, they have been 
scrubbed, on the environment, on the war. We want to make sure 
this information is not scrubbed before we get it. That is what 
we are asking for.
    Chairman Boehlert. I am going to tell you something. You 
are looking--and I have got the scars to prove it, you are 
looking at someone who has often been very critical of actions 
by this Administration. As Mr. Gordon mentioned, the misguided 
activities of some middle level guy in NASA trying to stifle 
dissent, a contrary opinion. I was the first one as Chairman of 
this committee acting on behalf of all of us to express outrage 
at that, got on the phone to call the NASA administrator and 
say what in the hell are you doing. And NASA is now turning out 
to be a model agency.
    It is saying to its scientists that we are not going to be 
interfering with scientific inquiry. There are some people 
around this town rather than being informed by science they 
want to intimidate scientists. Not me. So we are on the same 
wave length on that issue. And then another committee of this 
Congress, Mr. Rohrabacher--he is gone, where another committee 
of this Congress, the Energy and Commerce Committee, wanted to 
discuss global climate change. They didn't discuss it. They 
didn't have an open hearing. They started investigating 
scientists who came to a politically inconvenient conclusion 
from their standpoint.
    And I stood up for this committee, all of us, Republicans 
and Democrats, and challenged a fellow Republican and said you 
are wrong, that is not the way to proceed. And so I am just 
concerned that this is being--you are making a mountain out of 
a mole hill, quite honestly. We are hearing in this exchange 
here like we are talking about whether or not we are for 
outsourcing. Hell, no, we are not for outsourcing. And we are 
trying our darndest to make sure America is more competitive 
and retains more jobs and we have the economic growth we want 
right here.
    With that, who seeks recognition? Ms. Hooley.
    Ms. Hooley. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I too, as you know, I 
talked to you earlier, am very sorry that you are leaving. I 
really appreciate your leadership. I know you have stood up 
when scientists have been asked to change their reports. I know 
you have been there time and time again. And I guess that is 
why I am a little surprised on this whole issue because I 
suspect that whatever raw data is in that 200 pages is minor 
compared to our not knowing what is in those 200 pages.
    And I don't know if anyone has seen the 45 pages but to get 
12 pages out of a 200-page raw data report, I think is--I don't 
think we are asking for too much. And I know this is about 
outsourcing. You have talked about outsourcing. My question has 
always been outsourcing has happened. What are we going to 
devote our time to and what do we need in this country to make 
sure that people that are out of work have a job and what 
direction do we want to go.
    This committee is in a position to help those workers who 
are making that shift from manufacturing to working in the high 
tech industry by increasing funds for technical and vocational 
education. I applaud the work being done by Mr. Gordon on this 
issue especially in light of the findings and recommendations 
of the Augustine report. I have also been working on 
legislation that focuses on improving technical education in 
this country by investing more money to strengthen education 
programs being conducted by the National Science Foundation, 
creating scholarships for students who choose to pursue a post-
secondary degree in science or engineering, and expanding NSF 
initiatives that provide technology training to students in two 
and four-year colleges.
    This is an effort that needs to be done by this committee. 
We have a lot to do with it. I see this as the future of our 
country to make sure that we have well-educated students, that 
we have students that are educated in the newest and latest 
technical information. I hope our committee would continue to 
push for that. And again I hope that again when people pay 
money for--that we ask them to give us information that they 
are not afraid of that information, that we want transparency 
and this should be--you know, they talk about a new story and 
sometimes if you don't like what is coming out if you just say, 
fine, it is a one-day story. Well, because we haven't put this 
out it seems to me it is going to be a story over and over and 
over again, so I hope that we would do that. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much for your 
contribution. Here is the drill. We are told that we can expect 
a vote on the Floor within the next ten minutes or so. Mr. 
Gordon advises that there are no amendments so we would like to 
wrap it up, but I don't want to stifle anyone. So is there 
anyone who seeks recognition from the Chair?
    Mr. Lipinski. I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Boehlert. Yes. Mr. Lipinski.
    Mr. Lipinski. I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, 
I would like to thank you for your service to your 
constituents, to this Congress, to America, and for your 
courage that you have shown in sometimes rising above 
partisanship. I know how difficult that is. And this is a 
partisan institution, and we need to rise above that as much as 
we can. We can never get rid of the partisanship, we know that, 
but let me for this moment step into my old shoes as a social 
scientist.
    Every day I have people coming up to me in my district 
talking about outsourcing, what are we going to do, we are 
losing jobs. They are concerned about where America is going. 
They are concerned about the future of their jobs, their 
family, and the one thing that we really need is more 
information because the next question always is what are you 
going to do about it. And so that is what I work on and that is 
what we work on here, and I am glad that we have been able to 
do some things in a bipartisan fashion on this committee to 
address some of these issues about the future of American jobs 
especially in technology and in regard to education.
    I hope that we can move forward in an even more bipartisan 
fashion on this. And I think this report in getting this 
information all comes down to we need to know more. What can we 
do in order to make sure that in the future we are prepared, 
our children are prepared through education. We do what we can 
in terms of research and development and everything else that 
we can do in order to preserve and create more good jobs for 
Americans.
    As a social scientist I look at it and say I just want more 
information. The more information we can get the better off we 
will be because we can make a better decision. We won't have to 
be shooting in the dark or going by limited information. The 
more we know the better off we are. The more data points we 
have the better we understand what is going on. And that is why 
I think there really is no reason not to ask for this report to 
get this information.
    I assume that the information was in the whole report. I 
assume it was done very professionally. And in the end we just 
need to decide that we need to have the information. If 
Congress does not have information, we cannot make good 
policies. Thank you.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much. And let me comfort 
you by inviting you to get the NAPA report. The first volume is 
out. It is going to be very comprehensive about a subject that 
you and I agree is extremely important. Is there anyone else 
who seeks recognition? Mr. Gordon, I will give you the 
opportunity. Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. Let me just because I know we are going to have 
a vote coming up soon. Let me stipulate, I want to stipulate 
for the record that there is no Democrat, Republican on this 
committee that wants to see jobs outsourced in their district. 
Let us get that off the table. I want to stipulate that is the 
case. So that is not what this is about. It is about doing our 
job. That is what this whole matter is about.
    And our Chairman mentioned the example in NASA and how 
there was a problem, how he and the Committee stood up, cleaned 
it up, and NASA is better off. The Department of Commerce would 
be better off if we did the same thing here. Let me clear up a 
couple of facts, and then I want to make a suggestion. First of 
all, I cannot tell you that the full $375,000 taxpayer dollars 
were spent on this report, but I don't think we ought to be 
arguing about how much taxpayer dollars you can waste. That is 
not what we ought to be arguing about.
    We also again--let me again mention very clear on this NAPA 
report we have heard about, that report, the first volume is 
out. They have 20 pages of footnotes, 20 pages of footnotes. 
This Commerce Department is not mentioned anywhere in these 20 
pages of footnotes. Now they do have an additional appendix 
that talks about who they talked to, and apparently they did 
talk to these analysts but the analysts tell us they did not 
turn over the information. It was not provided.
    So that also--you know, and as the Chairman learns more 
about it hopefully we will stipulate that too. So finally here 
is my suggestion. This issue is not going to go away. I suspect 
that we are not going to prevail today but the fact of the 
matter is that every media source that covers this issue says 
this is important and that we should have this information. 
They have written stories about it. They are going to continue 
to write stories about it.
    My understanding, Lou Dobbs is getting Freedom of 
Information. This is not going to go away. We are going to come 
back and ask for it again. If we lose today, what I would 
suggest is that you all caucus, talk about this among 
yourselves, decide what you really think is right, and let us 
find a face saving way to come back later and do this so that 
we can, you know--everybody can be winners and we can move 
forward.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Gordon. Certainly. Yes, Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Before--it looks like the Chairman is 
going to give you a positive answer, but I would just this. You 
mentioned Lou Dobbs. This document couldn't be more important 
as we are in the midst of a very tense debate on immigration. 
Why? Because one of the issues is about jobs, jobs in America 
and how we can protect American jobs.
    And I would think this whole issue of a competitiveness 
report for scientists and Members of the Science Committee 
would certainly be the appropriate nonpartisan vehicle where 
this report could be issued, and we could try to find solutions 
because many of us are advocates of job creation. So I yield 
back to the gentleman, and it looks as if we may have a 
resolution. But I thank the gentleman for his leadership on 
this issue.
    Mr. Gordon. I yield back my time, and I suggest unless 
there is other great wisdom that we go ahead and try to vote 
before this next vote.
    Chairman Boehlert. I will show you how bipartisanship 
continues to prevail on the Committee. You will notice in his 
closing statement the distinguished Ranking Member outlined a 
strategy for the Majority, and I thank you for that suggestion. 
With that, the vote is on the resolution, H. Res. 717, 
Directing the Secretary of Commerce to transmit to the House of 
Representatives a copy of a workforce globalization final draft 
report produced by the Technology Administration. All those in 
favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The nos appear to have it.
    Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, on that question I ask for a 
recorded vote pursuant to the Committee rules.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will call the roll.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Boehlert.
    Chairman Boehlert. No.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Boehlert votes no. Mr. Hall.
    Mr. Hall. No.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Hall votes no. Mr. Smith.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Weldon.
    Mr. Weldon. No.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Weldon votes no. Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. Mr. Calvert.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Bartlett.
    Mr. Bartlett. No.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Bartlett votes no. Mr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Ehlers. No.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Ehlers votes no. Mr. Gutknecht.
    Mr. Gutknecht. No.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Gutknecht votes no. Mr. Lucas.
    Mr. Lucas. No.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Lucas votes no. Ms. Biggert.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Gilchrest.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Akin.
    Mr. Akin. No.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Akin votes no. Mr. Johnson.
    Mr. Johnson. No.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Johnson votes no. Mr. Forbes.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Bonner.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Feeney.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Inglis.
    Mr. Inglis. No.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Inglis votes no. Mr. Reichert.
    Mr. Reichert. No.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Reichert votes no. Mr. Sodrel.
    Mr. Sodrel. No.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Sodrel votes no. Mr. Schwarz.
    Mr. Schwarz. No.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Schwarz votes no. Mr. McCaul.
    Mr. McCaul. No.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. McCaul votes no. Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. Aye.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Gordon votes yes. Mr. Costello.
    Mr. Costello. Aye.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Costello votes yes. Ms. Johnson.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Mayorga. Ms. Woolsey.
    Ms. Woolsey. Aye.
    Mr. Mayorga. Ms. Woolsey votes yes. Ms. Hooley.
    Ms. Hooley. Aye.
    Mr. Mayorga. Ms. Hooley votes yes. Mr. Udall.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Wu.
    Mr. Wu. Aye.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Wu votes yes. Mr. Honda.
    Mr. Honda. Yes.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Honda votes yes. Mr. Miller.
    Mr. Miller. Aye.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Miller votes yes. Mr. Davis.
    Mr. Davis. Aye.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Davis votes yes. Mr. Lipinski.
    Mr. Lipinski. Aye.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Lipinski votes yes. Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
    Mr. Mayorga. Ms. Jackson Lee votes yes. Mr. Sherman.
    Mr. Sherman. Aye.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Sherman votes yes. Mr. Baird.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Matheson.
    Mr. Matheson. Aye.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Matheson votes yes. Mr. Costa.
    Mr. Costa. Aye.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Costa votes yes. Mr. Green.
    Mr. Green. Yes.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Green votes yes. Mr. Melancon.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Moore.
    [No response.]
    Chairman Boehlert. Is Mr. Forbes recorded?
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Forbes is not recorded. Mr. Forbes votes 
no.
    Chairman Boehlert. Is Mr. Gilchrest recorded?
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Gilchrest is not recorded. Mr. Gilchrest 
votes no.
    Chairman Boehlert. Is Mr. Bartlett recorded?
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Bartlett is recorded as a no.
    Chairman Boehlert. Mr. Costa, did you get your vote in? How 
is Mr. Costa recorded?
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Costa is recorded as a yes.
    Chairman Boehlert. I would like to point out to my 
colleagues while it is being tallied, we have a new Clerk, a 
veteran of the Committee, David Mayorga. David, welcome. How is 
Mr. Calvert recorded?
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Calvert is not recorded.
    Chairman Boehlert. How is Mr. Feeney recorded?
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Feeney is not recorded. Mr. Feeney votes 
no.
    Chairman Boehlert. Does the Clerk have a tally?
    Mr. Mayorga. 14 yes, 19 no.
    
    
    Chairman Boehlert. The resolution is defeated. The question 
is on the motion--I recognize who for a motion. Dr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee 
adversely report H. Res. 717 to the House with a recommendation 
that the resolution not be agreed to. Furthermore, I move that 
staff be instructed to prepare the legislative report and make 
necessary technical and conforming changes.
    Chairman Boehlert. The question is on the motion to report 
the resolution adversely. Those in favor of the motion will 
signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the 
resolution is adversely reported.
    Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, on that question I ask for a 
recorded vote pursuant to the Committee rules.
    Chairman Boehlert. Clerk will call the role.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Boehlert.
    Chairman Boehlert. Aye.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Boehlert votes yes. Mr. Hall.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Smith.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Weldon.
    Mr. Weldon. Aye.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Weldon votes yes. Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Rohrabacher votes yes. Mr. Calvert.
    Mr. Calvert. Yes.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Calvert votes yes. Mr. Bartlett.
    Mr. Bartlett. Yes.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Bartlett votes yes. Mr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Ehlers. Yes.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Ehlers votes yes. Mr. Gutknecht.
    Mr. Gutknecht. Yes.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Gutknecht votes yes. Mr. Lucas.
    Mr. Lucas. Yes.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Lucas votes yes. Ms. Biggert.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Gilchrest.
    Mr. Gilchrest. Aye.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Gilchrest votes yes. Mr. Akin.
    Mr. Akin. Yes.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Akin votes yes. Mr. Johnson.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Forbes.
    Mr. Forbes. Yes.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Forbes votes yes. Mr. Bonner.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Feeney.
    Mr. Feeney. Yes.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Feeney votes yes. Mr. Inglis.
    Mr. Inglis. Yes.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Inglis votes yes. Mr. Reichert.
    Mr. Reichert. Yes.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Reichert votes yes. Mr. Sodrel.
    Mr. Sodrel. Aye.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Sodrel votes yes. Mr. Schwarz.
    Mr. Schwarz. Aye.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Schwarz votes yes. Mr. McCaul.
    Mr. McCaul. Yes.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. McCaul votes yes. Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. No.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Gordon votes no. Mr. Costello.
    Mr. Costello. No.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Costello votes no. Ms. Johnson.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Mayorga. Ms. Woolsey.
    Ms. Woolsey. No.
    Mr. Mayorga. Ms. Woolsey votes no. Ms. Hooley.
    Ms. Hooley. No.
    Mr. Mayorga. Ms. Hooley votes no. Mr. Udall.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Wu.
    Mr. Wu. No.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Wu votes no. Mr. Honda.
    Mr. Honda. No.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Honda votes no. Mr. Miller.
    Mr. Miller. No.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Miller votes no. Mr. Davis.
    Mr. Davis. No.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Davis votes no. Mr. Lipinski.
    Mr. Lipinski. No.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Lipinski votes no. Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. No.
    Mr. Mayorga. Ms. Jackson Lee votes no. Mr. Sherman.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Baird.
    Mr. Baird. No.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Baird votes no. Mr. Matheson.
    Mr. Matheson. No.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Matheson votes no. Mr. Costa.
    Mr. Costa. No.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Costa votes no. Mr. Green.
    Mr. Green. No.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Green votes no. Mr. Melancon.
    Mr. Melancon. No.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Melancon votes no. Mr. Moore.
    Mr. Moore. No.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Moore votes no. Mr. Sherman. Mr. Sherman, 
you are not recorded.
    Mr. Sherman. No.
    Mr. Mayorga. Mr. Sherman votes no. Yes, 17, no, 17.
    
    
    Chairman Boehlert. The motion is now reported, 17 to 17. 
Counsel, what happens? It stays in committee. We have to have 
another mark-up. All right. We got to go vote. The vote has 
already been announced. Thank you. We are going to adjourn 
pending call of the Chair.
    [Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
                               Appendix:

                              ----------                              


  H. Res. 717, Brief Timeline of the Report and Informational Requests






        Brief Timeline of the Report and Informational Requests

          January, 2004: The FY 2004 Consolidated 
        Appropriations report directed the Technology Administration 
        (TA) to undertake a study on ``the extent and implications of 
        workforce globalization in knowledge-based industries such as 
        life sciences, information technology, semi-conductors and 
        financial services.'' The report was due by June 23, 2004. 
        $335,000 was earmarked for this study.

          No less than five analysts at TA immediately began 
        work on the report in January 2004, ultimately producing a 
        draft of almost 200 pages in length. Just before submitting 
        their drafts to TA management, the analysts were ordered to 
        remove all citations and sourcing in their analytical report. 
        However, neither the report nor a summary is ever released by 
        Commerce.

          May, 2005: Democratic Staff of the Science Committee 
        ask the Commerce Dept. for the status of the off-shoring report 
        and a briefing. Commerce Legislative Affairs never responded to 
        the request (nor to subsequent requests during the summer).

          August 3, 2005: Reps. Gordon, Costello and Wu sent a 
        letter to Secretary Gutierrez asking him to release the 
        report--now more than a year overdue--and also asking questions 
        regarding why the report was so late. The Secretary did not 
        respond.

          September 15, 2005: A report summary, 12 pages in 
        length, was released by Commerce in response to pressure from 
        the Committee letter and from a Freedom of Information Act 
        request filed by ``Manufacturing News.'' The summary was 15 
        months late. Staff learned that it was actually composed during 
        August of 2005 and ``back-dated'' to comply with the 
        Appropriation's direction.

          October 11, 2005: Reps. Gordon, Costello and Wu sent 
        a letter to Secretary Gutierrez once again requesting a copy of 
        the original draft report produced by TA analysts. No response.

          December 23, 2005: Dan Caprio, Deputy Assistant 
        Secretary for Technology Policy denied Democratic Members' 
        request for the original draft report. His reply thanked them 
        for their ``FOIA request.''

          January 26, 2006: Rep. Gordon asked Chairman Boehlert 
        to sign a document request to the Commerce Department 
        requesting a copy of the draft report and other materials. 
        Chairman Boehlert declined.

          February 8, 2006: Reps. Gordon and Wu wrote to 
        Subcommittee Chairman Ehlers asking that he sign a request for 
        the final draft report. Chairman Ehlers declined through his 
        staff.

          March 9, 2006: Rep. Gordon introduced a Resolution of 
        Inquiry (H. Res. 717) directing the Secretary of Commerce to 
        deliver a copy of the final draft TA report to Congress. The 
        Resolution was referred to the House Science Committee which 
        has 14 legislative days to act.

XVI. PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP ON H. RES. 717, DIRECTING 
THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE TO TRANSMIT TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES A 
 COPY OF A WORKFORCE GLOBALIZATION FINAL DRAFT REPORT PRODUCED BY THE 
                       TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 2006

                  House of Representatives,
                                      Committee on Science,
                                                    Washington, DC.

    The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood L. 
Boehlert [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Committee on Science will now come 
to order.
    Pursuant to notice, the Committee on Science meets to 
conclude unfinished business with respect to the following 
measure: H. Resolution 717, Directing the Secretary of Commerce 
to transmit to the House of Representatives a copy of a 
workforce globalization final draft report produced by the 
Technology Administration. I ask unanimous consent for the 
authority to recess the Committee at any point during 
consideration of these matters, and without objection, that is 
so ordered.
    We will now begin with the opening statements, and I will 
go first, since I am sitting here.
    I want to welcome everyone here for our second markup on 
the Democrat Resolution of Inquiry concerning the Department of 
Commerce outsourcing report. Last week, while were discussing 
how hard it is to count the number of the jobs leaving and 
entering the country, we ended up demonstrating how hard it is 
for us to count the number of Members leaving and entering the 
room. Consequently, the result was a tie vote that left the 
Resolution in limbo, voted down, but not reported out.
    So today, the matter before us is simply a motion to report 
out the Resolution. This time, for procedural reasons, the 
motion is to report out the Resolution without recommendation, 
rather than adversely. If the motion succeeds, the effect will 
be the same as last week's motion would have been: the House 
will take no further action on this Resolution.
    I think we had a very full and open debate last week, and 
it was constructive and instructive. So I will just summarize 
our arguments today in a few sentences. There is nothing at 
stake in the matter of this report. No one has argued that it 
contains any unique insight or revelation. It has been 
superseded by a much more thorough effort by the National 
Academy of Public Administration, requested by the same folks 
who asked for the Commerce report. And no one directly involved 
with the management of the Commerce report still works for the 
Department. So I continue to believe the whole debate is really 
much ado about nothing.
    There is one point I would like to clarify from last week. 
Some people misinterpreted my comments, perhaps they were 
inartfully expressed, to mean that NAPA had received the 
documents from the Department of Commerce. This is obviously 
not the case; giving NAPA the documents would have made them 
public, which would have made the Resolution moot.
    What I was saying, and what I continue to say, perhaps with 
a little more precision this time, is that all of the essential 
information related to the report was conveyed to NAPA. NAPA 
interviewed the analysts several times, and NAPA was given the 
list of all the sources that they had used. As far as we know, 
there is no idea or information that was in the report, and 
that is what I mean by ``data'' last week--meant by ``data'' 
last week, that was not conveyed to NAPA, and we have had them 
reaffirm that. So to repeat myself, the fact that the report 
itself has not been released is of no consequence.
    Now I know none of this will convince my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle. They want the report, period, and no 
amount of argument is going to make that desire go away, and 
quite frankly, I can understand that.
    And since last week, they have made a new offer to get the 
report, one designed to deal with my concerns that this report 
request is just the beginning of an endless ``fishing 
expedition'' that will lead to needless legal battles that 
could weaken the hand of future Congresses.
    The offer is basically that if I agree to request the 
report, then they will agree not to request any further 
materials related to the report in this Congress, the ``fishing 
expedition'' that I fear. I think that is a good faith offer, 
quite honestly, and I feel it entices--it is enticing, because 
my hope is that actually reading the report will put this whole 
matter to bed.
    Again, no one has suggested that there is anything 
explosive or even particularly revealing in it. My hope would 
be that the release of the report would lead to less 
politicking, not more. And then we could go back to having a 
genuine debate about what to do about outsourcing, a phenomenon 
we all want to address.
    There are important details of that offer that need to be 
worked out, and Mr. Gordon and I, just prior to the onset of 
this hearing, were continuing our constructive dialogue. We 
want to get this offer, and we have got to work out some 
details before we can reach any agreement. And there is no need 
for the time--there is no time for that to--just right here and 
now. To take just one example, we have to be sure that we have 
a clear, unambiguous description of what is being requested, 
and we don't have that yet, but we are close. The staffs are 
trying to work out these matters and will report back to us. 
And Mr. Gordon and I, as always, have good dialogue back and 
forth. It is not contentious. It is not confrontational. It is 
constructive. I hope we can reach an accommodation. Nothing 
would make me happier than for this committee to be able to 
continue to spend its time in its usual more productive, more 
bipartisan ways.
    So let us dispense with this motion quickly today. That is 
my hope.
    Mr. Gordon.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Boehlert follows:]
          Prepared Statement of Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert
    I want to welcome everyone here for our second markup on the 
Democrat Resolution of Inquiry concerning the Department of Commerce 
outsourcing report. Last week, while we were discussing how hard it is 
to count the number of jobs leaving and entering the country, we ended 
up demonstrating how hard it is to count the number of Members leaving 
and entering the room. And the result was a tie vote that left the 
Resolution in limbo--voted down, but not reported out.
    So today, the matter before us is simply a motion to report out the 
Resolution. This time, for procedural reasons, the motion is to report 
out the Resolution without recommendation (rather than adversely). If 
the motion succeeds, the effect will be the same as last week's motion 
would have had--the House will take no further action on this 
Resolution.
    I think we had a very full and open debate last week, so I will 
just summarize our arguments today in a few sentences: There is nothing 
at stake in the matter of this report. No one has argued that it 
contains any unique insight or revelation. It has been superseded by a 
much more thorough effort by the National Academy of Public 
Administration (NAPA), requested by the same folks who asked for the 
Commerce report. And no one directly involved with the management of 
the Commerce report still works for the Department. So I continue to 
believe this whole debate is much ado about nothing.
    There is one point I would like to clarify from last week. Some 
people misinterpreted my comments to mean that NAPA had received 
documents from the Department of Commerce. This is obviously not the 
case; giving NAPA the documents would make them public, which would 
have made the Resolution moot.
    What I was saying, and what I continue to say--perhaps more 
artfully now--is that all the essential information related to the 
report was conveyed to NAPA. NAPA interviewed the analysts several 
times, and NAPA was given the list of all the sources they had used. As 
far as we know, there is no idea or information that was in the 
report--that's what I meant by ``data'' last week--that was not 
conveyed to NAPA. So, to repeat myself, the fact that the report itself 
has not been released is of no consequence.
    Now I know none of this will convince my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle. They want the report, period, and no amount of 
argument is going to make that desire go away.
    And since last week, they have made a new offer to get the report, 
one designed to deal with my concerns that this report request is just 
the beginning of an interminable ``fishing expedition'' that will lead 
to needless legal battles that could weaken the hand of future 
Congresses.
    The offer is basically that if I agree to request the report, then 
they will agree not to request any further materials related to the 
report this Congress. I think that's a good faith offer, and I find it 
enticing because my hope is that actually reading the report will put 
this whole matter to bed.
    Again, no one has suggested that there's anything explosive or even 
particularly revealing in it. My hope would be that the release of the 
report would lead to less politicking not more. And then we could go 
back to having a genuine debate about what to do about outsourcing, a 
phenomenon we all want to address.
    There are important details of that offer that need to be worked 
out before we can reach any agreement, and there was no time to do that 
before today. To take just one example, we have to be sure that we have 
a clear, unambiguous description of what's being requested, and we 
don't have that yet. The staffs are trying to work out these matters 
and will report back to us. I hope we can reach an accommodation. 
Nothing would make me happier than for the Committee to be able to 
spend its time in its usual more productive, more bipartisan ways.
    So let's dispense quickly with this motion today.
    Mr. Gordon.

    Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And let me thank you for accepting our compromise. It was 
made in the spirit of civility that you mentioned at our last 
meeting, and I know it was accepted in that same spirit. As you 
have said, there may be a little bit of fuzziness right now, 
but there is no fussiness between you and I. we know what we 
want to try to get accomplished, and we are going to get it 
done, and I have no, you know, I have no concern about that.
    Let me also say that the spirit of our request was made 
just the way Frank Wolf made the original request. Frank asked 
the Commerce Department to do a report on outsourcing of high-
tech jobs. That is what we--you know, because he was 
interested, just like we were. My hope is we are going to see a 
report, probably not as extensive as the gathering above--or 
the ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' but it was from that 
report that we got some bad news, but we also received some 
good suggestions on what to do about it. Because of that, two-
thirds of the United States Senate, Democrats and Republicans 
alike, have gotten together and introduced legislation that I 
think is very positive. We have got bipartisan legislation here 
in the House that also reflected the ``Rising Above the 
Gathering Storm.'' And I welcome the Republican Members of 
this--of the House to join in that bipartisan effort, and I 
think--at least I hope that when this report comes forward, 
that we are going to find some things we can work together on 
and can continue that effort.
    So let me be clear and--by saying that when we receive 
our--you know, the full, 200-page, or approximate 200-page 
report, with footnotes that we will seek no further production 
of information. We will have no further Resolution of Inquiry 
and no freedom of information. I know that the Majority would 
like to get a letter signed by all of the Members of our 
committee. And I--you know, on a short notice, we can't do 
that. I can't speak for, and I shouldn't be able to control our 
Members, but I have talked with most all of them or their 
staff. They are all in agreement with this. If some--you know, 
something--somebody comes from right field or left field, or 
whatever field it might be, from the House, I will oppose it 
when it comes here. Again, all we want to do is work together, 
try to come up with some good legislation that can deal with 
this problem that we all know we face.
    Chairman Boehlert. That is a common interest. And just let 
me say that while we are not just there yet, we haven't agreed 
to that, we have agreed to further define exactly what we are 
asking for, and that will get us where we both want to be.
    Mr. Gordon. Yeah, I have no doubt we will do that. I guess 
my only concern is--and when I am--we deal with good faith, we 
don't want to be ``rope a doped'' by the Department of 
Commerce, and if that ultimately happens, I hope that you will 
join in a subpoena to get this done.
    Chairman Boehlert. I don't want to be ``rope a doped'' by 
anyone.
    All right.
    The unfinished business is H. Res. 717, Directing the 
Secretary of Commerce to transmit to the House of 
Representatives a copy of a workforce globalization final draft 
report produced by the Technology Administration.
    I recognize Dr. Ehlers for a motion.
    Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee report 
H. Res. 717 to the House without recommendation.
    Chairman Boehlert. The question is on----
    Mr. Ehlers. Furthermore, I move that staff be instructed to 
prepare the legislative report and make necessary technical and 
conforming changes.
    Chairman Boehlert. The question is on the motion to report 
the Resolution without recommendation. Those in favor of the 
motion will signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have 
it. The Resolution is reported without recommendation.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon 
the table. I move that Members have two subsequent calendar 
days in which to submit supplemental, minority, or additional 
views on the measure. Without objection, so ordered.
    I want to thank my colleagues for coming to this meeting, 
and as we promised, truth in advertising, it has been brief and 
non-contentious. We are continuing to work together.
    Thank you. This hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 10:20 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]


                               Appendix:

                              ----------                              


                              H. Res. 717




