[House Report 110-172]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



110th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    110-172
======================================================================
 
                       10,000 TRAINED BY 2010 ACT

                                _______
                                

  June 6, 2007.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Gordon of Tennessee, from the Committee on Science and Technology, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 1467]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Science and Technology, to whom was 
referred the bill (H.R. 1467) to authorize the National Science 
Foundation to award grants to institutions of higher education 
to develop and offer education and training programs, having 
considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment 
and recommend that the bill do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
   I. Bill...........................................................00
  II. Purpose of the Bill............................................00
 III. Background and Need for the Legislation........................00
  IV. Hearing Summary................................................00
   V. Committee Actions..............................................00
  VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill........................00
 VII. Section-by-Section Analysis (by Title and Section).............00
VIII. Committee Views................................................00
  IX. Cost Estimate..................................................00
   X. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................
XI....Compliance with Public Law 104-4.................................
XII...Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations.................
XIII..Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives............
XIV...Constitutional Authority Statement...............................
XV....Federal Advisory Committee Statement.............................
XVI...Congressional Accountability Act.................................
XVII..Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law...........
XVIII.Earmark Identification...........................................
XIX...Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............
XX....Committee Recommendations........................................
XXI...Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup.........................
110th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    110-172

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




                       10,000 TRAINED BY 2010 ACT

                                _______
                                

  June 6, 2007.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Gordon of Tennessee, from the Committee on Science and Technology, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 1467]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Science and Technology, to whom was 
referred the bill (H.R. 1467) to authorize the National Science 
Foundation to award grants to institutions of higher education 
to develop and offer education and training programs, having 
considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment 
and recommend that the bill do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
   I. Bill...........................................................00
  II. Purpose of the Bill............................................00
 III. Background and Need for the Legislation........................00
  IV. Hearing Summary................................................00
   V. Committee Actions..............................................00
  VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill........................00
 VII. Section-by-Section Analysis (by Title and Section).............00
VIII. Committee Views................................................00
  IX. Cost Estimate..................................................00
   X. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................
XI....Compliance with Public Law 104-4.................................
XII...Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations.................
XIII..Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives............
XIV...Constitutional Authority Statement...............................
XV....Federal Advisory Committee Statement.............................
XVI...Congressional Accountability Act.................................
XVII..Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law...........
XVIII.Earmark Identification...........................................
XIX...Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............
XX....Committee Recommendations........................................
XXI...Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup.........................

                                I. BILL

                                                    Union Calendar No. 
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1467

                           [Report No. 110- ]

    To authorize the National Science Foundation to award grants to 
  institutions of higher education to develop and offer education and 
                           training programs.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 9, 2007

 Mr. Wu (for himself, Mr. Hall of Texas, Mr. Gordon of Tennessee, and 
 Mr. Gingrey) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                  Committee on Science and Technology

                             June --, 2007

   Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
                    Union, and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL



    To authorize the National Science Foundation to award grants to 
  institutions of higher education to develop and offer education and 
                           training programs.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``10,000 Trained by 2010 Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    The Congress finds that--
            (1) the National Science Foundation has long been a 
        government leader in strengthening our Nation's information 
        infrastructure;
            (2) as automation and digitization reach the healthcare 
        industry, that industry will need to draw heavily on the 
        expertise of researchers funded by the National Science 
        Foundation for the collection, processing, and utilization of 
        information;
            (3) the National Science Foundation's basic research, 
        demonstrations, and curriculum development assistance are all 
        required to help make sure the industry has the knowledge, 
        procedures, and workforce necessary to take full advantage of 
        advanced communications and information technology;
            (4) the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated that 136,000 
        Americans were employed in 2000 as information management 
        professionals in the healthcare industry alone, with projected 
        growth of 49 percent by 2010; and
            (5) no systematic plan exists for designing and 
        implementing systems and information tools and for ensuring 
        that the healthcare workforce can make the transition to the 
        information age.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:
            (1) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
        the National Science Foundation.
            (2) Information.--The term ``information'' means healthcare 
        information.
            (3) Institution of higher education.--The term 
        ``institution of higher education'' has the meaning given that 
        term in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
        U.S.C. 1001).

SEC. 4. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION RESEARCH.

    (a) Grants.--
            (1) In general.--The Director, in consultation with the 
        heads of other Federal agencies as appropriate, shall award 
        grants for basic research on innovative approaches to improve 
        information systems. Research areas may include--
                    (A) information studies;
                    (B) population informatics;
                    (C) translational informatics; and
                    (D) data security, integrity, and confidentiality.
            (2) Merit review; competition.--Grants shall be awarded 
        under this section on a merit-reviewed, competitive basis.
            (3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
        to be appropriated to the National Science Foundation to carry 
        out this subsection--
                    (A) $3,500,000 for fiscal year 2008;
                    (B) $3,600,000 for fiscal year 2009;
                    (C) $3,700,000 for fiscal year 2010; and
                    (D) $3,800,000 for fiscal year 2011.
    (b) Informatics Research Centers.--
            (1) In general.--The Director, in consultation with the 
        heads of other Federal agencies as appropriate, shall award 
        multiyear grants, subject to the availability of 
        appropriations, to institutions of higher education (or 
        consortia thereof) to establish multidisciplinary Centers for 
        Informatics Research. Institutions of higher education (or 
        consortia thereof) receiving such grants may partner with one 
        or more government laboratories, for-profit institutions, or 
        non-profit institutions.
            (2) Merit review; competition.--Grants shall be awarded 
        under this subsection on a merit-reviewed, competitive basis.
            (3) Purpose.--The purpose of the Centers shall be to 
        generate innovative approaches in information by conducting 
        cutting-edge, multidisciplinary research, including in the 
        research areas described in subsection (a)(1).
            (4) Applications.--An institution of higher education (or a 
        consortium thereof) seeking funding under this subsection shall 
        submit an application to the Director at such time, in such 
        manner, and containing such information as the Director may 
        require. The application shall include, at a minimum, a 
        description of--
                    (A) the research projects that will be undertaken 
                by the Center and the contributions of each of the 
                participating entities;
                    (B) how the Center will promote active 
                collaboration among professionals from different 
                disciplines, such as information technology 
                specialists, health professionals, administrators, and 
                social science researchers; and
                    (C) how the Center will contribute to increasing 
                the number of information researchers and other 
                professionals.
            (5) Criteria.--In evaluating the applications submitted 
        under paragraph (4), the Director shall consider, at a 
        minimum--
                    (A) the ability of the applicant to generate 
                innovative approaches to information and effectively 
                carry out the research program;
                    (B) the experience of the applicant in conducting 
                research in the information field, and the capacity of 
                the applicant to foster new multidisciplinary 
                collaborations;
                    (C) the capacity of the applicant to attract and 
                provide adequate support for undergraduate and graduate 
                students to pursue information research; and
                    (D) the extent to which the applicant will partner 
                with government laboratories or for-profit or non-
                profit entities, and the role the government 
                laboratories or for-profit or non-profit entities will 
                play in the research undertaken by the Center.
            (6) Annual meeting.--The Director shall convene an annual 
        meeting of the Centers in order to foster collaboration and 
        communication between Center participants.
            (7) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
        to be appropriated for the National Science Foundation to carry 
        out this subsection--
                    (A) $4,500,000 for fiscal year 2008;
                    (B) $4,600,000 for fiscal year 2009;
                    (C) $4,700,000 for fiscal year 2010; and
                    (D) $4,800,000 for fiscal year 2011.

SEC. 5. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION INFORMATION PROGRAMS.

    (a) Capacity Building Grants.--
            (1) In general.--The Director, in consultation with the 
        heads of other Federal agencies as appropriate, shall establish 
        a program to award grants to institutions of higher education 
        (or consortia thereof) to establish or improve undergraduate 
        and master's degree information programs, to increase the 
        number of students who pursue undergraduate or master's degrees 
        in information fields, to provide students with experience in 
        government or industry related to their information studies, 
        and, to the extent practicable, to do so using distance 
        learning.
            (2) Merit review; competition.--Grants shall be awarded 
        under this subsection on a merit-reviewed, competitive basis.
            (3) Use of funds.--Grants awarded under this subsection 
        shall be used for activities that enhance the ability of an 
        institution of higher education (or consortium thereof) to 
        provide high-quality information education, including 
        certification and undergraduate and master's degree programs, 
        and to recruit and retain increased numbers of students to such 
        programs. Activities may include--
                    (A) developing and revising curriculum to better 
                prepare undergraduate and master's degree students for 
                careers in the information field;
                    (B) establishing degree and certificate programs in 
                the information field;
                    (C) creating opportunities in information research 
                for undergraduate students;
                    (D) acquiring equipment necessary for student 
                instruction in these programs, including the 
                installation of testbed networks for student use;
                    (E) providing opportunities for faculty to work 
                with State, local, or Federal Government agencies, 
                private industry, and other academic institutions to 
                develop new expertise or to formulate new information 
                research directions;
                    (F) establishing collaborations with other academic 
                institutions or departments that seek to establish, 
                expand, or enhance these programs;
                    (G) establishing student internships for students 
                in these programs at State, local, and Federal 
                Government agencies or in private industry;
                    (H) establishing or enhancing bridge programs in 
                information fields between community colleges and 
                universities; and
                    (I) any other activities the Director, in 
                consultation with the heads of other Federal agencies 
                as appropriate, determines will achieve the purposes 
                described in paragraph (1).
            (4) Selection process.--
                    (A) Application.--An institution of higher 
                education (or a consortium thereof) seeking funding 
                under this subsection shall submit an application to 
                the Director at such time, in such manner, and with 
                such contents as the Director may require. The 
                application shall include, at a minimum--
                            (i) a description of the applicant's 
                        relevant research and instructional capacity, 
                        and in the case of an application from a 
                        consortium of institutions of higher education, 
                        a description of the role that each member will 
                        play in implementing the proposal;
                            (ii) a comprehensive plan by which the 
                        institution or consortium will build 
                        instructional capacity in information fields;
                            (iii) a description of relevant 
                        collaborations with State, local, or Federal 
                        Government agencies or private industry that 
                        inform the instructional program;
                            (iv) a survey of the applicant's historic 
                        student enrollment and placement data and a 
                        study of potential enrollment and placement for 
                        students enrolled in the proposed program; and
                            (v) a plan to evaluate the success of the 
                        proposed program, including postgraduate 
                        assessment of graduate school and job placement 
                        and retention rates as well as the relevance of 
                        the instructional program to graduate study and 
                        to the workplace.
                    (B) Awards.--The Director shall ensure, to the 
                extent practicable, that grants are awarded under this 
                subsection in a wide range of geographic areas and 
                categories of institutions of higher education.
            (5) Assessment required.--The Director, in consultation 
        with the heads of other Federal agencies as appropriate, shall 
        evaluate the program established under this subsection no later 
        than 3 years after the establishment of the program. At a 
        minimum, the Director shall evaluate the extent to which the 
        grants have achieved their objectives of increasing the quality 
        and quantity of students pursuing undergraduate or master's 
        degrees in information fields. The Director shall make this 
        assessment publicly available.
            (6) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
        to be appropriated to the National Science Foundation to carry 
        out this subsection--
                    (A) $9,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
                    (B) $9,200,000 for fiscal year 2009;
                    (C) $9,400,000 for fiscal year 2010; and
                    (D) $9,600,000 for fiscal year 2011.
    (b) Scientific and Advanced Technology Act of 1992.--
            (1) Grants.--The Director shall provide grants under the 
        Scientific and Advanced Technology Act of 1992 for the purposes 
        of section 3(a) and (b) of that Act, except that the activities 
        supported pursuant to this subsection shall be limited to 
        improving education in fields related to information.
            (2) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
        to be appropriated to the National Science Foundation to carry 
        out this subsection--
                    (A) $7,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
                    (B) $7,200,000 for fiscal year 2009;
                    (C) $7,400,000 for fiscal year 2010; and
                    (D) $7,600,000 for fiscal year 2011.

                              II. PURPOSE

    The purpose of this bill is to authorize the National 
Science Foundation to award grants to institutions of higher 
education to develop and offer education and training programs.

              III. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

    Healthcare information technology (``health IT''), if 
properly implemented, will cut down on the estimated 44,000-
98,000 annual American deaths related to medical errors and on 
the nearly $300 billion spent annually on inefficient and 
unnecessary treatments. Electronic healthcare technology cannot 
be effective, however, without a workforce in place to manage 
the technology and unless those who will use health IT to 
perform their duties are properly trained.
    Despite federal assistance to other areas of health IT, 
there is no systematic plan for training of the current 
healthcare workforce to use health information technology in 
the current jobs. Additionally, the need for individuals who 
specialize in managing health IT is expected to grow 49 percent 
from 2000 to 2010, and nearly 75 percent of health 
organizations say that there are not enough qualified 
applicants to fill open health IT management positions. Without 
a trained workforce, health IT cannot succeed.

                          IV. HEARING SUMMARY

    During the 109th Congress, the House Committee on Science 
held one hearing relevant to H.R. 1467. On February 23, 2006, 
the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards held 
a field hearing entitled, ``Health Care Information Technology: 
What are the Opportunities for and Barriers to Inter-operable 
Health Information Technology Systems?'' Testimony was received 
from seven witnesses: 1) Mr. William Jeffrey, Director, 
National Institute of Standards and Technology; 2) Dr. Jody 
Pettit, Project Chair, Portland Health Care Quality 
Corporation; 3) Ms. Diane Cecchettini, President and CEO, 
MultiCare Health System; 4) Mr. John Kenagy, CIO, Oregon Health 
and Science University; 5) Dr. Homer Chin, Medical Director, 
Clinical Information Systems, Kaiser Permanente; 6) Mr. Luis 
Machuca, President and CEO, Kryptiq Corporation; and 7) Mr. 
Prem Urali, President and CEO, HealthUnity Corporation.
    During this hearing two related issues were raised by all 
witnesses: 1) the lack of IT professionals with specialized 
training to develop appropriate health IT software and to work 
in healthcare settings; and 2) the lack of training for 
healthcare professionals to efficiently use information 
technology in their jobs. All of the witnesses agreed that the 
lack of trained professionals was a significant obstacle to the 
adoption of health IT systems.

                          V. COMMITTEE ACTIONS

    As summarized in Section IV of this report, the 
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards heard 
testimony in the 109th Congress relevant to the programs 
authorized in H.R. 1467.
    On March 9, 2007, Representative David Wu, Chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation of the Committee on 
Science and Technology, for himself and Representatives Hall, 
Gordon and Gingrey introduced H.R. 1467, the ``10,000 Trained 
by 2010 Act,'' to authorize the National Science Foundation to 
award grants to institutions of higher education to develop and 
offer education and training programs.
    On May 23, 2007, the Committee on Science and Technology 
met to consider H.R. 1467. Mr. Hall moved that the Committee 
favorably report the bill, H.R. 1467 to the House with the 
recommendation that the bill do pass; that the staff be 
instructed to make necessary technical and conforming changes; 
and that the Chairman take all necessary steps to bring the 
bill before the House for consideration. The motion was agreed 
to by voice vote.

              VI. SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE BILL

    Authorizes NSF to award grants to institutions of higher 
education to: carry out research on innovative approaches to 
enhancing healthcare informatics through hardware and software 
solutions; establish multidisciplinary Centers for Healthcare 
Informatics Research; and establish or improve undergraduate 
and master's degree programs, as well as certificate programs 
in healthcare informatics. Authorizes NSF to expand the 
activities of the Advanced Technological Education program to 
support improved education and technical training, at 2-year 
colleges, in fields related to healthcare informatics.

              VII. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE BILL

    Sec. 1. Short Title--10,000 Trained by 2010 Act.
    Sec. 2. Findings--Describes findings for this Act.
    Sec. 3. Definitions--Provides definitions for this Act.
    Sec. 4. National Science Foundation Research--Authorizes 
NSF to award grants to institutions of higher education for 
research on innovative approaches to enhancing healthcare 
informatics through hardware and software solutions. The focus 
of this research would be in the area of clinical/healthcare 
informatics, public health/population informatics, 
translational informatics, and privacy and confidentiality. 
Authorizes NSF to award grants to institutions of higher 
education to establish multidisciplinary Centers for Healthcare 
Informatics Research. Applicants may partner with government 
laboratories and/or for-profit institutions. These Centers are 
designed to advance the health IT research agenda and to train 
additional qualified health IT personnel and professionals, 
including physicians, nurses, information technology 
specialists, medical administrators and social scientists. 
Instructs NSF to convene an annual meeting of Center 
investigators to facilitate information exchange.
    Sec. 5. National Science Foundation Information Programs--
Authorizes NSF to establish a program to award grants to 
institutions of higher education to establish or improve 
undergraduate and master's degree programs, as well as 
certificate programs in healthcare informatics, to increase the 
number of students who pursue studies in fields related to 
health IT and to provide students with experience in government 
or the private sector related to their health IT studies. Funds 
may be used for curriculum development, faculty development, 
equipment acquisition, student recruitment and/or the 
establishment of bridge programs with two-year colleges and 
industry internship programs for students. The provision 
encourages the use of distance learning when appropriate. 
Finally, authorizes NSF to expand the activities of the 
Advanced Technological Education program (centered on two-year 
institutions), established under the Scientific and Advanced 
Technology Act of 1992, to support improved education and 
technical training in fields related to health IT.

                         VIII. COMMITTEE VIEWS

    The Committee recognizes the benefits that an integrated 
healthcare information technology network could provide. 
However, the Committee believes that investment in physical 
infrastructure and technology alone is not enough. In fact, the 
lack of a workforce with the appropriate skill sets and 
training can impede the adoption of technology.
    H.R. 1467 is designed to fill a gap in education and 
training for health IT students and professionals who will 
design and/or use health IT systems. Given the National Science 
Foundation's expertise in overseeing curriculum development, 
training and research in the broad field of IT, NSF is uniquely 
positioned to bring its IT and educational expertise to bear in 
the specialized area of health IT.

                           IX. COST ESTIMATE

    A cost estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of 
the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 has been timely submitted to 
the Committee on Science and Technology prior to the filing of 
this report and is included in Section X of this report 
pursuant to House Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(3).
    H.R. 1467 does not contain new budget authority, credit 
authority, or changes in revenues or tax expenditures. Assuming 
that the sums authorized under the bill are appropriated, H.R. 
1467 does authorize additional discretionary spending, as 
described in the Congressional Budget Office report on the 
bill, which is contained in Section X of this report.

              X. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

                                                      June 1, 2007.
Hon. Bart Gordon,
Chairman, Committee on Science and Technology,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1467, the 10,000 
Trained by 2010 Act.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Daniel 
Hoople.
            Sincerely,
                                                   Peter R. Orszag.
    Enclosure

H.R. 1467--10,000 Trained by 2010 Act

    Summary: H.R. 1467 would authorize the appropriation of 
about $100 million over the 2008-2011 period for the National 
Science Foundation (NSF) to award grants to institutions of 
higher education to conduct basic research and improve 
undergraduate and graduate education in the study of 
information systems. Research grants would be awarded on a 
competitive basis to develop innovative approaches to improve 
the collection and management of information. Additionally, 
grant funds authorized by the bill would be used to develop 
curricula, acquire equipment, establish and expand degree 
programs, and undertake other activities to improve education 
in information-related fields.
    CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1467 would cost $83 
million over the 2008-2012 period (with additional outlays 
after 2012), assuming the appropriation of the specified funds. 
Enacting H.R. 1467 would have no effect on direct spending or 
revenues.
    H.R. 1467 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA); 
costs to public institutions of higher education would result 
from complying with conditions of federal assistance.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 1467 is shown in the following table. 
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 250 
(general science, space, and technology).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      By fiscal year, in millions of
                                                 dollars--
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                   2008    2009    2010    2011    2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Research Grants:
    Authorization Level.........       4       4       4       4       0
    Estimated Outlays...........       1       2       3       4       3
Informatics Research Centers:
    Authorization Level.........       5       5       5       5       0
    Estimated Outlays...........       1       3       4       4       4
Capacity Building Grants:
    Authorization Level.........       9       9       9      10       0
    Estimated Outlays...........       1       5       7       9       8
Information Education and
 Centers:
    Authorization Level.........       7       7       7       8       0
    Estimated Outlays...........       1       4       6       7       6
                                 ---------------------------------------
    Total Changes:
        Authorization Level.....      25      25      25      27       0
        Estimated Outlays.......       4      14      20      24      21
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Basis of estimate: H.R. 1467 would authorize the 
appropriation of about $100 million over the next five years 
for the NSF to award grants to institutions of higher education 
for research and education programs on information systems. For 
this estimate, CBO assumes that the bill will be enacted in 
fiscal year 2007 and that the amounts authorized by the bill 
will be appropriated for each fiscal year. Assuming the 
appropriation of the specified amounts, CBO estimates that 
implementing H.R. 1467 would cost $4 million in 2008 and $83 
million over the 2008-2012 period.

Research grants

    H.R. 1467 would establish a grant program for institutions 
of higher education to conduct research on innovative 
approaches to improve information systems. The bill would 
authorize the appropriation of about $15 million to NSF for 
this activity over the 2008-2011 period. Based on the 
historical spending patterns of other NSF research activities, 
CBO estimates that implementing this grant program at the 
levels specified in the bill would cost $13 million over the 
2008-2012 period.

Informatics research centers

    H.R. 1467 would authorize the appropriation of $20 million 
over the next four years to establish informatics research 
centers. Competitive, multiyear grants would be awarded to 
institutions of higher education to conduct informatics 
research (i.e., the study of the structure, behavior and 
interactions of systems that store, process, and communicate 
information.) Assuming the appropriation of the specified 
amounts, CBO estimates that implementing this provision would 
cost $16 million over the 2008-2012 period.

Capacity building grants

    H.R. 1467 would direct NSF to award grants to institutions 
of higher education to improve undergraduate and graduate 
education in information systems. Grants could be used to 
establish or expand degree programs, develop curricula, acquire 
necessary equipment, foster relationships with the public and 
private sector, and provide opportunities for students to 
obtain practical experience in the information field. The bill 
would authorize the appropriation of $37 million over the 2008-
2011 period for the operation of such a grant program. Based on 
the historical spending patterns of similar NSF programs, CBO 
estimates that implementing this provision would cost $30 
million over the 2008-2012 period.

Information education and centers

    H.R. 1467 would authorize the appropriation of $29 million 
over the 2008-2011 period for two grant programs originally 
created by the Scientific and Advanced Technology Act of 1992. 
Under that Act, NSF is directed to award grants to institutions 
of higher education that offer associate degree programs in 
advanced technology fields. Grants could be used to develop 
model instructional programs and materials, provide for the 
professional development of faculty members, establish 
partnerships with the public and private sectors, acquire 
necessary equipment, and establish centers that serve as 
information clearinghouses and models for other educational 
institutions. Assuming the appropriation of the specified 
amounts, CBO estimates that implementing this grant program 
would cost $24 million over the 2008-2012 period.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 1467 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA. Public institutions of higher education would 
benefit from the research and program development activities 
authorized in the bill. Any costs those institutions might 
incur would result from complying with conditions of federal 
assistance.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Daniel Hoople. Impact 
on State, local, and tribal governments: Lisa Ramirez-Branum. 
Impact on the Private Sector: Amy Petz.
    Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine: Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                  XI. COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104-4

    H.R. 1467 contains no unfunded mandates.

         XII. COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    The oversight findings and recommendations of the Committee 
on Science and Technology are reflected in the body of this 
report.

      XIII. STATEMENT ON GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

    Pursuant to clause (3)(c) of House rule XIII, the goals of 
H.R. 1467 are to advance research and provide education and 
training in the area of information technology.

                XIV. CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

    Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United 
States grants Congress the authority to enact H.R. 1467.

                XV. FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

    H.R. 1467 does not establish nor authorize the 
establishment of any advisory committee.

                 XVI. CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

    The Committee finds that H.R. 1467 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).

                      XVII. EARMARK IDENTIFICATION

    H.R. 1467 does not contain any congressional earmarks, 
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 
clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI.

     XVIII. STATEMENT ON PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL, OR TRIBAL LAW

    This bill is not intended to preempt any state, local, or 
tribal law.

       XIX. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

    None.

                     XX. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    On May 23, 2007, the Committee on Science and Technology 
favorably reported H.R. 1467 and recommended its enactment.

             XXI. PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP


XXI. PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP ON H.R. 1467, THE 10,000 
                          TRAINED BY 2010 ACT

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, MAY 23, 2007

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

    The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in Room 
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bart Gordon 
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Chairman Gordon. Good morning everyone. The Committee on 
Science and Technology will come to order. Pursuant to notice, 
the Committee meets to consider the following measures: H.R. 
364, To provide for the establishment of the Advanced Research 
Projects Agency-Energy; H.R. 1467, the 10,000 Trained by 2010 
Act; H.R. 1716, the Green Energy Education of 2007; and H.R. 
632, the H-Prize Act of 2007.
    Before we get started with this markup though, we have one 
quick piece of Committee business to attend to. The 
distinguished Member from California, Mr. Calvert, recently 
took a leave of absence from the Committee to serve on 
Appropriations. This left the Space and Aeronautics 
Subcommittee without a Ranking Member. Last week Mr. Hall 
announced that Representative Feeney would take over as Ranking 
Member of the Subcommittee, and I now ask unanimous consent 
that the Committee on Science and Technology ratify the 
selection of Mr. Feeney as Ranking Member of the Space and 
Aeronautics Subcommittee. Without objection----
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, do you have to be present to be 
proposed or----
    Chairman Gordon. Well, I am considering that no objection 
and--or may I say, I consider that a slight objection and it is 
so ordered. I want to congratulate Mr. Feeney.
    Let me also say that Ken Calvert--I was Ranking Member of 
this committee and Ken did much more than I did. He made an 
effort to go to every facility all across the country and 
became very knowledgeable and we hope that he will be a 
continuing asset and I am sure that Mr. Feeney will also do a 
good job, but Ken did a particularly good job and hopefully he 
will be there on Appropriations to understand these issues.
    We now begin with the markup and I will begin with a brief 
statement. Today the Committee is marking up four bills. The 
first bill we will consider is a bill that I introduced, H.R. 
364, which establishes the Advanced Research Project Agency for 
Energy, and in the Subcommittee hearing and in the markup we 
had a very healthy discussion that I believe pointed to the 
critical need for such an entity. We have worked hard with our 
friends from across the aisle, and while there are still a few 
differences, it has resulted in a better bill. It is my 
understanding that this discussion will continue today with a 
number of amendments, and I look forward to addressing those 
concerns.
    The next bill we will take up is H.R. 1467, the 10,000 
Trained by 2010 Act, introduced by Chairman Wu. This is a good 
bill which I support. There has been a lot of talking in 
Washington about the need to push health care IT forward. Our 
medical system is far behind other sectors in the use of 
information technology. However, it is common knowledge that 
information technology could significantly improve patient care 
and reduce health care costs, and let me just collaterally say 
that I have just introduced H.R. 2406. It is a health care IT 
bill that will be in the jurisdiction of this committee. As I 
think Mr. Gingerich can tell you, it is going to be wildly 
popular within the health care area, doctors, physicians, 
everyone. Health care IT or IT in the health care area is one 
of the few areas that hasn't really matured. It is so popular 
that Newt Gingerich and Hillary Clinton are supporting this 
concept and so I would suggest to all of you to take a look at 
it. Don't get involved if you don't want to but I think you 
will find that it will be something that is going to be a good 
bill and will be popular for you.
    And we also have H.R. 1716, the Green Energy Education Act 
of 2007. It was introduced by Mr. McCaul, and H.R. 1716 raises 
the profile of a very important issue, university research and 
education on clean energy including energy efficiency and green 
building design and technologies. It would bring together the 
Department of Energy, a emission agency, and the National 
Science Foundation, which has a long history with science and 
technological education, in a common goal to help educate the 
next generation of energy technology experts and green building 
professionals. This bill helps meet a very important need, and 
I thank Mr. McCaul for bringing it to the Committee, and who 
would have known he would have been such a greenie. But we 
thank you. This is a good bill.
    We also will consider Mr. Lipinski's and Mr. Inglis' H.R. 
362, the H-Prize Act of 2007. Hydrogen technology represents 
just the type of transformational possibilities that we are 
hoping to achieve with ARPA-E and may some day make an 
important piece of our energy puzzle, and I commend our 
colleagues, Mr. Inglis and Mr. Lipinski, for working together 
to make this a good bipartisan bill and I look forward to 
moving it through the Committee today.
    So these are the four good bills that we have before us and 
I now would like to recognize Mr. Hall to present his opening 
remarks.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Gordon follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Chairman Bart Gordon
    Today the Committee is meeting to markup four bills.
    The first bill we will consider today is a bill that I introduced, 
H.R. 364, which establishes an Advanced Research Projects Agency for 
Energy. In the Subcommittee hearing and markup we had a very healthy 
discussion that, I believe, pointed to the critical need for such an 
entity.
    We have worked hard with our friends across the aisle. And, while 
there are still substantial differences, it has resulted in a better 
bill. It is my understanding that this discussion will continue today 
with a number of amendments, and I look forward to addressing your 
concerns.
    The next bill we will take up is H. R. 1467, the 10,000 Trained by 
2010 Act introduced by Chairman Wu. This is a good bill which I 
support.
    There has been a lot of talk in Washington about the need to push 
health care IT forward. Our medical system is far behind other sectors 
in the use of information technology. However, it is common knowledge 
that information technology could significantly improve patient care 
and reduce health care costs.
    While there has been a lot of discussion on the issue in Congress, 
not much has actually been done. In this case, Chairman Wu and other 
Members of the Committee have identified one component of the issue and 
how the Science and Technology Committee could make a real and positive 
contribution in this area.
    I strongly support this legislation and would urge everyone on the 
Committee to do so as well.
    H.R. 1716, the Green Energy Education Act of 2007, was reintroduced 
by Mr. McCaul this year after having passed the House as part of a 
broader bipartisan Science Committee Energy R&D bill at the end of the 
109th Congress.
    H.R. 1716 raises the profile of a very important issue--university 
research and education on clean energy, including energy efficiency and 
green building design and technologies. It would bring together the 
Department of Energy, a mission agency, and the National Science 
Foundation, which has a long history with science and technology 
education, in a common goal to help educate the next generation of 
energy technology experts and green building professionals.
    This bill helps meet a very important need and I thank Mr. McCaul 
for bringing it to the Committee.
    We will also consider by Mr. Lipinski, H.R. 632, the H-Prize Act of 
2007. Hydrogen technologies represent just the type of transformational 
possibilities that we are hoping to achieve with ARPA-E, and may some 
day make up an important piece of our energy puzzle.
    I commend my colleagues Mr. Inglis and Mr. Lipinski for working 
together and for working hard to make this a good, bipartisan bill. I 
look forward to moving it through Committee today.
    These are four good bills, and I strongly encourage my colleagues 
to support all of them.

    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, you and I have been working 
together now for over 22 years and on the same side of the 
aisle for most of that time, and if it weren't for me switching 
parties you might not even be Chairman right now, and I have 
been talked to by 4/5 of you bunch asking me to switch back. A 
good group on both sides. I appreciate everybody on both sides 
of the Chairman here, and you can thank me later if you would 
like.
    When you work with someone as long as we have, not only on 
this committee but also on the Commerce Committee--we are on 
that Committee together--there are bound to be some times when 
we are going to disagree, and as much as I dislike going 
against my friend from Tennessee, sometimes it just happens. As 
it turns out, today is one of those days. While I commend you, 
Bart, for your efforts on behalf of boosting energy R&D, I 
disagree with the way H.R. 364 does it. I have to say that I 
have a problem with the idea of creating a new bureaucracy 
within the Department of Energy that will regardless of 
intention fight for money with existing and future programs at 
DOE. With the tight budget parameters we are working with, I am 
not comfortable authorizing the creation of ARPA-E based on a 
vague recommendation that was in the Gathering Storm report. 
The facts are that DOE currently has the authority to do ARPA-
type projects but DOE is woefully under-funded. I am concerned 
that we could be faced with the problem of having both the 
Office of Science and ARPA-E underfunded so that neither of 
them is operating at full potential if we go forward with the 
creation of this new agency, and before we go forward with any 
ARPA-type projects, I would like the Section 1821 study in 
EPAct to be completed that looks at the applicability of the 
DARPA management practices and the advisability of creating a 
DARPA-type agency within DOE before we move toward this 
legislation, and to that end, I will be introducing an 
amendment that without creating a new bureaucracy would require 
the Secretary of Energy to identify and accelerate advanced 
research projects at the DOE that will address our energy 
needs. I along with several of my colleagues have sent a letter 
to the Secretary urging him to complete the study as mandated 
by law so that we all might benefit from its recommendations.
    In addition to the letter, we also ask the Secretary to 
appoint a technology transfer coordinator and establish the 
technology transfer working group. As several of our witnesses 
testified to in our committee hearing, technology transfer 
plays a very integral part in the process from basic research 
to widespread commercialization. I don't think anyone would 
dispute that our country needs clean, affordable, reliable 
energy that is generated through research and development. This 
committee should continue to advance legislation that addresses 
our most critical energy needs in a fiscally responsible 
manner. To that end, I will be introducing legislation by the 
end of the week that will help accomplish these goals.
    In addition to the ARPA-E legislation, we will also be 
marking up H.R. 1467, H.R. 1716 and H.R. 632. I am an original 
co-sponsor of H.R. 1467, the 10,000 Trained by 2010 Act, and I 
am supportive of the primary goal it seeks to achieve. If 
implemented correctly and efficiently, health information 
technology can revolutionize our health care system but we have 
to have an educated workforce properly trained in health IT in 
order for it to be successful, and this is what H.R. 1467 is 
about. NSF is already doing work, yeoman's work in the IT arena 
but this measure will increase the focus on health IT. I 
encourage my colleagues to support it.
    I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1716, the Green Energy 
Education Act of 2007, introduced by my fellow Texan, Mr. 
McCaul. This is a good piece of legislation. It was voted out 
of this committee in the last Congress. The fact that it has 
also been included in larger packages on both sides of the 
aisle in this Congress indicates its overwhelming support. 
Simply put, this measure encourages the Department of Energy to 
work with the National Science Foundation to help develop the 
next generation of engineers and architects to work effectively 
together to produce buildings that will incorporate the latest 
in energy-efficient technologies. I commend Mr. McCaul for his 
fine work on this bill.
    Finally, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 632, the H-
Prize Act, sponsored by Inglis and Lipinski. This legislation 
was introduced in the last Congress and passed overwhelmingly 
by the House of Representatives. This bill directs the 
Secretary of Energy to award competitive cash prizes biannually 
to advance the research, development, demonstration and 
commercial applications of hydrogen energy technologies. 
Categories eligible for prizes include advancements in certain 
hydrogen components or systems, prototypes of hydrogen-powered 
vehicles and transformational changes in the technologies for 
hydrogen distribution or production. I commend Mr. Inglis and 
Mr. Lipinski for introducing this legislation and I encourage 
my colleagues to support it.
    Once again, Mr. Chairman, I am happy to be supportive of 
these three bipartisan pieces of legislation. I look forward to 
working with you to advance these bills.
    I yield back my time, sir.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
           Prepared Statement of Representative Ralph M. Hall
    Mr. Chairman, you and I have been working together for over 22 
years now--and on the same side of the aisle for most of that time. 
Why, if it weren't for me switching parties, you might not be the 
chairman right now! You can thank me later. . .. When you work with 
someone as long as we have, not only on this committee, but also on the 
Commerce Committee, there are bound to be times when we're going to 
disagree, and as much as I dislike going against my good friend from 
Tennessee, sometimes it just happens. As it turns out, today is one of 
those days. While I commend my friend for his efforts on behalf of 
boosting energy R&D, I disagree with the way H.R. 364 does it. I have 
to say that I have a problem with the idea of creating a new 
bureaucracy within the Department of Energy that will, regardless of 
intention, fight for money with existing and future programs at DOE. 
With the tight budget parameters we are working with, I am not 
comfortable authorizing the creation of ARPA-E based on a vague 
recommendation that was in the Gathering Storm report.
    The facts are that DOE currently has the authority to do ARPA-type 
projects, but DOE is woefully under funded. I am concerned that we 
could be faced with the problem of having both the Office of Science 
and ARPA-E under funded so that neither of them is operating at its 
full potential if we go forward with creating this new agency. Before 
we go forward with any ARPA-type projects, I would like the Section 
1821 study in EPACT to be completed that looks at the applicability of 
the DARPA management
    practices and the advisability of creating a DARPA-type agency 
within DOE before moving forward with legislation. To that end I will 
be introducing an amendment that, without creating a new bureaucracy, 
would require the Secretary of Energy to identify and accelerate 
advanced research projects at the DOE that will address our energy 
needs. I, along with several of my colleagues, have sent a letter to 
the Secretary urging him to complete the study as mandated by law so 
that we all may benefit from its recommendations. In addition, in the 
letter we also ask the Secretary to appoint the Technology Transfer 
Coordinator and establish the Technology Transfer Working Group. As 
several of our witnesses testified to in our Subcommittee hearing, 
technology transfer plays an integral part in the process from basic 
research to widespread commercialization.
    I don't think anyone would dispute that our country needs clean, 
affordable, reliable energy that is generated through research and 
development. This committee should continue to advance legislation that 
addresses our most critical energy needs in a fiscally responsible 
manner. To that end, I will be introducing legislation by the end of 
this week that will help accomplish these goals.
    In addition to the ARPA-E legislation we will also be marking up 
H.R. 1467, H.R. 1716, and H.R. 632. I am an original co-sponsor of H.R. 
1467, the 10,000 Trained by 2010 Act, and am supportive of the primary 
goal it seeks to achieve. If implemented correctly and efficiently, 
health information technology (IT) can revolutionize our health care 
system. But, we must have an educated workforce, properly trained in 
health IT, in order for it to be successful. This is what H.R. 1467 is 
about. NSF is already doing work yeoman's work in the IT arena, but 
this measure will increase the focus on health IT. I encourage my 
colleagues to support it.
    I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1716, the Green Energy 
Education Act of 2007, introduced my fellow Texan, Mr. McCaul. This is 
a good piece of legislation that was voted out of this committee in the 
last Congress. The fact that it is also being included in larger energy 
packages on both sides of the aisle in this Congress indicates its 
overwhelming support. Simply put, this measure encourages the 
Department of Energy to work with the National Science Foundation to 
help develop the next generation of engineers and architects to work 
effectively together to produce buildings that incorporate the latest 
in energy efficient technologies. I commend Mr. McCaul for his fine 
work on this bill.
    Finally, I also urge my colleagues to support H.R. 632, the H-Prize 
Act sponsored by Inglis and Lipinski. This legislation was introduced 
in the last Congress and passed overwhelmingly by the House of 
Representatives. The bill directs the Secretary of Energy to award 
competitive cash prizes biennially to advance the research, 
development, demonstration, and commercial application of hydrogen 
energy technologies. Categories eligible for prizes include 
advancements in certain hydrogen components or systems, prototypes of 
hydrogen-powered vehicles, and transformational changes in technologies 
for hydrogen distribution or production. I commend Mr. Inglis and Mr. 
Lipinski for introducing this legislation, and I encourage my 
colleagues to support it.
    Once again, Mr. Chairman, I am happy to be supportive of these 
three bipartisan pieces of legislation and look forward to working with 
you to advance these bills. I yield back the balance of my time.

    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Hall. As you have pointed 
out, we have had a good working relationship and I will point 
out that every bill that has come out of this committee has 
been unanimous and the only--one bill received 21 negative 
votes on the Floor. That is the worst we have done on the 
Floor. We are going to have I hope three unanimous bills today 
and I think the reason that we have been able to do this is, we 
have started with good bills. We have had extensive 
consultation and by making better bills. At the end of the day 
we are going to have our first disagreement but I think two 
things will happen: We are going to have amendments today that 
will make the bill even better and I think at the end of the 
day that it will be a bipartisan bill but it won't be a 
unanimous bill, and we will try to proceed without kicking or 
scratching and we will get this done. So without objection, 
Members may place statements in the record at this point.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Mitchell follows:]
         Prepared Statement of Representative Harry E. Mitchell
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Today we are considering several bills to decrease our dependence 
on foreign oil and encourage renewable sources of energy.
    As the world leader in emissions of greenhouse gasses, it is 
imperative that we as a nation actively pursue the means to reduce 
those emissions. We have an obligation to lead the world toward a 
solution. One way to accomplish this is to invest in alternative energy 
sources.
    The bills before us today would put in place necessary components 
to take us where we need to be as a nation including education and 
training, monetary incentives, and fast acting, responsive research 
programs.
    The United States must lead by example and invest in clean, 
renewable energy sources.
    Today, we are considering several bills to address this issue and I 
look forward to working on them.
    Sustainable energy is an issue that affects our environment, our 
economy, and our national security, and we cannot leave this problem 
for future generations of Americans to solve.
    I yield back the balance of my time.

    Chairman Gordon. We will now consider H.R. 1467, the 10,000 
Trained by 2010 Act. I yield to the Chairman of Technology and 
Innovation Subcommittee, Mr. Wu, five minutes to describe the 
bill.
    Mr. Wu. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We have had a 
busy morning, and I shall be as quick as possible.
    All the Members of this committee and I have been working 
on the issue of health care IT for two years. The genesis of 
H.R. 1467 was a round table I held in Oregon in August of 2005. 
This round table was followed by an Environment Standards and 
Technology Subcommittee field hearing on health care 
information technology in February of 2006. Representative 
Reichert chaired the hearing, and Ranking Member Hall also had 
staff in attendance.
    One of the common issues raised at both of these events was 
the lack of training for folks who are experts in both health 
care and in IT. Despite the federal focus on developing a 
national electronic health care record system, there is no 
systematic plan for the training of current and prospective 
professionals in both health care and in IT. And without this, 
without folks who are expert in both fields, we run a serious 
risk of having boxes and software sit on desks unlit and 
unused. The need for individuals to manage health care IT is 
expected to grow 49 percent between 2000, and 2010, and nearly 
75 percent of health care organizations indicate there are not 
enough qualified applicants to fill open health care management 
positions. H.R. 1467 is intended to keep the lights on at these 
organizations and focus on addressing the specific educational 
gap.
    I would like to point out the Science and Technology 
Committee has a history of developing specific training and 
research programs for IT professionals. During the 107th 
Congress the Committee became concerned that the lack of 
specialized computer security training for IT students and 
professionals was a contributing factor in the lack of good 
computer security practices and software. As a result, this 
committee developed and moved H.R. 3394, the Cyber Security 
Research and Development Act, which vested such programs at the 
National Science Foundation and subsequently became Public Law 
107-305.
    H.R. 1467 consists of four components. It authorizes the 
National Science Foundation to award research grants for 
innovative approaches to enhancing software informatics. I want 
to make clear and emphasize that this provision builds upon 
existing NSF activities. It authorizes NSF to support multi-
disciplinary health and medical informatics research centers to 
perform research and to train qualified health care informatics 
personnel and professionals.
    It authorizes NSF to establish a grant program to improve 
undergraduate, masters, and certificate programs in health care 
informatics. The goal is to increase the number of students and 
the quality of their training in the field. This program allows 
both four-year and two-year institutions to participate as well 
as allowing for the development of continuing education 
curricula.
    And finally, it authorizes NSF's Advanced Technology 
Education Program which focuses solely on two-year colleges to 
support improved education and technical training for health 
care informatics.
    H.R. 1467 is a bipartisan product of this committee. Then 
Chairman Hall and I introduced this bill in the last Congress. 
This Congress we reintroduced this bill along with Chairman 
Gordon and Ranking Member Gingrey of the Technology and 
Innovation Subcommittee. I have spoken to Dr. Gingrey about 
health care IT, and he knows firsthand the challenges involved 
in integrating IT into medical settings. We all recognize the 
benefits that an integrated health care IT network could 
provide in terms of improved patient care, safety, privacy, and 
potential cost savings.
    However, investment and physical infrastructure, software, 
and technology alone is not enough. We need research and to 
train health care and IT professionals to use and design the 
resulting systems well.
    And with that I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Wu. It is not much, but 
seriously, thank you for your work in bringing this to us. I 
know you have been very tenacious about this, very committed to 
this, and we thank you.
    And now I recognize Mr. Hall for any remarks.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, as Mr. Wu has stated, several of us 
here, I am included in that, are original co-sponsors on this. 
We urge the adoption of it.
    And I recognize Mr. Gingrey. I yield to Mr. Gingrey the 
rest of my time.
    Mr. Gingrey. I thank the distinguished Ranking Member for 
yielding.
    Mr. Chairman, let me just say that Chairman Wu pretty much 
summarized it. This issue of health information technology, 
electronic medical records, the President is right in calling 
for fully-integrated system by the year 2014, hopefully before 
then, and there was a Rand study, Mr. Chairman, that estimated 
that $160 billion a year could be saved from health care costs. 
We are spending about $2 trillion I think on an annual basis 
for health care.
    As we all know, probably 65, 70 percent of that is Federal 
Government spending through our military and veterans and 
Medicare, Medicaid, and the CHIP Program, so this is hugely 
important. I am proud to be a co-sponsor and working with David 
and you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Hall.
    So I will yield back, but I just want to enthusiastically 
support the bill 1467.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Gingrey. You are correct. 
There can be billions of dollars of savings here, but let me 
point out that we can't have the savings, we won't need the 
technicians until we have inter-operability and until we have 
patient security, and that is what our bill 2406 will provide. 
So these are going to work good together, and I look forward to 
working with you on that.
    Does anyone else wish to be recognized?
    I ask unanimous consent that the bill is considered as read 
and open to amendment at any point, and that the Members 
proceed with the amendments in the order of the roster. Without 
objection so ordered.
    Are there any amendments? Hearing none, the vote is on the 
bill, H.R. 1467. All those in favor will say aye. All those 
opposed will say no. In the opinion of the Chair the ayes have 
it.
    I recognize Mr. Hall to offer a motion.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee favorably 
report H.R. 1467 to the House with the recommendation that the 
bill do pass. Furthermore, I move that staff be instructed to 
make necessary technical and conforming changes and that the 
Chairman take all the necessary steps to bring the bill before 
the House for consideration.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Gordon. The question is on the motion to report 
the bill favorably. Those in favor of the motion will signify 
by saying aye. Opposed no. The ayes have it. The bill is 
reported favorably.
    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.
    I move pursuant to Clause 1 of Rule 22 of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives that the Committee authorize the 
Chairman to offer such motions as may be necessary in the House 
to adopt and pass H.R. 1467, the 10,000 Train by 2010 Act.
    Without objection, so ordered. Congratulations, Mr. Wu and 
Mr. Gingrey.
    Many thanks to everyone, and I want to conclude this 
markup.
    [Whereupon, at 1:00 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
                               APPENDIX:

                              ----------                              


                Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R. 1467






               Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R. 1467,
                       10,000 Trained by 2010 Act
SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE--10,000 Trained by 2010 Act.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS--Describes findings for this Act.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS--Provides definitions for this Act.

SEC. 4. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION RESEARCH--Authorizes NSF to award 
grants to institutions of higher education for research on innovative 
approaches to enhancing health care informatics through hardware and 
software solutions. The focus of this research would be in the area of 
clinical/health care informatics, public health/population informatics, 
translational informatics, and privacy and confidentiality. Authorizes 
NSF to award grants to institutions of higher education to establish 
multi-disciplinary centers for Health and Medical Informatics Research 
Centers. Applicants may partner with government laboratories and/or 
for-profit institutions. These centers are designed to advance the 
research agenda and to train additional qualified health care 
informatics personnel and professionals--which would include 
physicians, nurses, information technology specialists, medical 
administrators and social scientists. Instructs NSF to convene an 
annual meeting of Center investigators to facilitate information 
exchange.

SEC. 5. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION INFORMATION PROGRAMS--Authorizes 
NSF to establish a program to award grants to institutions of higher 
education to establish or improve undergraduate and Master's degree 
programs, as well as certificate programs in health care informatics, 
to increase the number of students who pursue studies in fields related 
to health care informatics and to provide students with experience in 
government or the private sector related to their health care 
informatics studies. Funds may be used for curriculum development, 
faculty development, equipment acquisition, student recruitment and/or 
the establishment of bridge programs with two-year colleges and 
industry internship programs for students. The provision encourages the 
use of distance learning when appropriate. Finally, authorizes NSF to 
expand the activities of the Advanced Technological Education program 
(centered on two-year institutions), established under the Scientific 
and Advanced Technology Act of 1992, to support improved education and 
technical training in fields related to health care informatics.

                                  
