3:19 PM EDT

Lamar S. Smith, R-TX 21st

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to sponsor H.R. 1806, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015, a pro-science, fiscally responsible bill that sets America on a path to remain the world's leader in innovation.

This bill reauthorizes civilian research programs at the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Department of Energy, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. H.R. 1806 prioritizes basic research and development, while staying within the caps set by the Budget Control Act.

America's businesses rely on government support for basic research to produce the scientific breakthroughs that spur technological innovation, jump-start new industries, and spur economic growth. Title I of the bill reauthorizes the National Science Foundation for 2 years and provides a 4.3 percent increase for research and related activities.

The bill prioritizes funding for the Directorates of Biological Sciences, Computer and Information Science and Engineering, Engineering, and Mathematics and Physical Sciences and recognizes the need to make strategic investments in basic R&D for the U.S. to remain the global leader in science and innovation. The bill reprioritizes research spending at NSF by cutting funding for the Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences and the Directorate for Geosciences.

Federal budget restraints require all taxpayers' dollars to be spent on high-value science in the national interest. Unfortunately, NSF has funded a number of projects that do not meet the highest standards of scientific merit, from climate change musicals, to evaluating animal photographs in National Geographic, to studying human-set fires in New Zealand in the 1800s. There are dozens of other examples.

The bill ensures accountability by restoring the original intent of the 1950 NSF Act and requiring that all grants serve the ``national interest.'' The NSF has endorsed this goal.

Title II represents the Science, Space, and Technology Committee's commitment to enhancing STEM education programs. A healthy and viable STEM workforce is critical to American industries and ensures our future economic prosperity.

The definition of STEM is expanded to include computer science, which connects all STEM subjects. The bill also creates an advisory panel on STEM education to ensure outside stakeholders have a role in assessing the Federal STEM education portfolio.

Title III includes three bipartisan bills the Science, Space, and Technology Committee approved in March. Those bills, H.R. 1119, the Research and Development Efficiency Act; H.R. 1156, the International Science and Technology Cooperation Act of 2015; and H.R. 1162, the Science Prize Competitions Act, passed the committee by voice vote. Two of these were sponsored by the Democrats.

Title IV supports the important measurement, standards, and technology work taking place at the National Institute of Standards and Technology

laboratories, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program, and the recently authorized Network for Manufacturing Innovation.

Measurement science conducted at NIST contributes to industrial competitiveness by supporting the technical infrastructure and advancements for nanotechnology, global positioning systems, material sciences, cybersecurity, health information technology, and a variety of other fields.

Title V reauthorizes the Department of Energy Office of Science for 2 years, at a 5.4 percent increase over fiscal year 2015. It prioritizes basic research that enables researchers in all 50 States to have access to world-class user facilities, including supercomputers and high-intensity light sources.

This bill also prevents duplication and requires DOE to certify that its climate science work is unique and not being undertaken by another Federal agency.

Title VI reauthorizes the DOE applied research and development programs and activities for fiscal year 2016 and 2017. They include the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, the Office of Nuclear Energy, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the Office of Fossil Energy, and the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy.

H.R. 1806 refocuses some spending on late-stage commercialization efforts within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to research and development efforts.

The bill requires DOE to provide a regular strategic analysis of science and technology activities within the Department, identifying key areas for collaboration across science and applied research programs.

Title VII proposes to cut red tape and bureaucracy in the DOE technology transfer process. It allows contractor-operators at DOE national laboratories to work with the private sector more efficiently by delegating signature authority to the directors of the labs [Page: H3420]

themselves, rather than to DOE contracting officers, for cooperative agreements valued at less than $1 million.

This title also requires DOE to assess its capability to authorize, host, and oversee privately funded fusion research and the next generation fission reactor prototypes. Currently, the private sector has little incentive to build reactor prototypes due to regulatory uncertainty from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1806 sets the right priorities for Federal civilian research, which enhances innovation and U.S. competitiveness without adding to the Federal deficit and debt.

I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

3:19 PM EDT

Lamar S. Smith, R-TX 21st

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to sponsor H.R. 1806, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015, a pro-science, fiscally responsible bill that sets America on a path to remain the world's leader in innovation.

This bill reauthorizes civilian research programs at the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Department of Energy, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. H.R. 1806 prioritizes basic research and development, while staying within the caps set by the Budget Control Act.

America's businesses rely on government support for basic research to produce the scientific breakthroughs that spur technological innovation, jump-start new industries, and spur economic growth. Title I of the bill reauthorizes the National Science Foundation for 2 years and provides a 4.3 percent increase for research and related activities.

The bill prioritizes funding for the Directorates of Biological Sciences, Computer and Information Science and Engineering, Engineering, and Mathematics and Physical Sciences and recognizes the need to make strategic investments in basic R&D for the U.S. to remain the global leader in science and innovation. The bill reprioritizes research spending at NSF by cutting funding for the Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences and the Directorate for Geosciences.

Federal budget restraints require all taxpayers' dollars to be spent on high-value science in the national interest. Unfortunately, NSF has funded a number of projects that do not meet the highest standards of scientific merit, from climate change musicals, to evaluating animal photographs in National Geographic, to studying human-set fires in New Zealand in the 1800s. There are dozens of other examples.

The bill ensures accountability by restoring the original intent of the 1950 NSF Act and requiring that all grants serve the ``national interest.'' The NSF has endorsed this goal.

Title II represents the Science, Space, and Technology Committee's commitment to enhancing STEM education programs. A healthy and viable STEM workforce is critical to American industries and ensures our future economic prosperity.

The definition of STEM is expanded to include computer science, which connects all STEM subjects. The bill also creates an advisory panel on STEM education to ensure outside stakeholders have a role in assessing the Federal STEM education portfolio.

Title III includes three bipartisan bills the Science, Space, and Technology Committee approved in March. Those bills, H.R. 1119, the Research and Development Efficiency Act; H.R. 1156, the International Science and Technology Cooperation Act of 2015; and H.R. 1162, the Science Prize Competitions Act, passed the committee by voice vote. Two of these were sponsored by the Democrats.

Title IV supports the important measurement, standards, and technology work taking place at the National Institute of Standards and Technology

laboratories, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program, and the recently authorized Network for Manufacturing Innovation.

Measurement science conducted at NIST contributes to industrial competitiveness by supporting the technical infrastructure and advancements for nanotechnology, global positioning systems, material sciences, cybersecurity, health information technology, and a variety of other fields.

Title V reauthorizes the Department of Energy Office of Science for 2 years, at a 5.4 percent increase over fiscal year 2015. It prioritizes basic research that enables researchers in all 50 States to have access to world-class user facilities, including supercomputers and high-intensity light sources.

This bill also prevents duplication and requires DOE to certify that its climate science work is unique and not being undertaken by another Federal agency.

Title VI reauthorizes the DOE applied research and development programs and activities for fiscal year 2016 and 2017. They include the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, the Office of Nuclear Energy, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the Office of Fossil Energy, and the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy.

H.R. 1806 refocuses some spending on late-stage commercialization efforts within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to research and development efforts.

The bill requires DOE to provide a regular strategic analysis of science and technology activities within the Department, identifying key areas for collaboration across science and applied research programs.

Title VII proposes to cut red tape and bureaucracy in the DOE technology transfer process. It allows contractor-operators at DOE national laboratories to work with the private sector more efficiently by delegating signature authority to the directors of the labs [Page: H3420]

themselves, rather than to DOE contracting officers, for cooperative agreements valued at less than $1 million.

This title also requires DOE to assess its capability to authorize, host, and oversee privately funded fusion research and the next generation fission reactor prototypes. Currently, the private sector has little incentive to build reactor prototypes due to regulatory uncertainty from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1806 sets the right priorities for Federal civilian research, which enhances innovation and U.S. competitiveness without adding to the Federal deficit and debt.

I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

3:25 PM EDT

Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-TX 30th

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today, I must unfortunately rise in opposition to the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act. It is unfortunate because I was a strong supporter of both the original COMPETES Act, as well as the 2010 reauthorization.

Both of those bills passed with bipartisan support, and both bills reflected the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences' groundbreaking 2005 report, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.''

It is worth reflecting on what the National Academy's panel found and why they made the recommendations they did.

First, the panel that wrote the report was composed of a distinguished group of individuals from industry, academia, and science; and it was headed by the former Lockheed CEO Norm Augustine.

The panel noted that much of America's economic growth and success in the decades following World War II was the direct result of our Nation's sustained investment in research and development. However, they noted that a gathering storm was approaching. America's economic and military competitors around the world had begun to catch up with our Nation's technological lead.

Moreover, research and development budgets in the United States were stagnating. The panel determined that America was sorely in need of a recommitment to research and development in order to maintain our competitive edge.

The Augustine panel gave specific recommendations that we increase R&D spending, revitalize STEM education across the country, and also create and support a new ARPA-E for breakthrough energy research modeled on the renowned DARPA program at the Department of Defense.

The original COMPETES Act implemented these recommendations across the board. Supporting this bill was one of the highlights of my two decades of service here in Congress.

I have highlighted this history because it is important to understand what we are doing here today and why these issues are so important. Since 2010, when we passed the last COMPETES reauthorization, R&D spending in America has begun to stagnate again and, by some measures, even declined.

In the meantime, our economic competitors have doubled down on their investments in research and development. Over the past decade, China has averaged a 23 percent increase in R&D spending each year. Perhaps, not surprisingly, in 2014, China overtook the United States to become the world's largest economic power.

The crisis that the Augustine committee warned us about in 2005 has now arrived.

[Time: 15:30]

What is the response of our majority to this crisis? Absolutely nothing. That is what is in H.R. 1806: absolutely nothing.

H.R. 1806 completely abandons the recommendations of the Augustine committee and the original COMPETES Act. It abandons the legacy of COMPETES by flat-funding R&D investments. It abandons the legacy by slashing funding for the very ARPA-E program envisioned by this committee, the Augustine committee. It abandons that legacy by politicizing the scientific grant-making process and pitting different research disciplines against each other.

I want to be clear about what it is that this majority is abandoning. They are abandoning our future.

America is the greatest nation on Earth, but our greatness is not guaranteed. We have to work for it. We have to do the things that are necessary to ensure a bright future for our country. That means making the same kinds of investments in science and technology that previous generations made. Our predecessors understood what was at stake. They made a commitment to invest in research and development and science education, and we still benefit from those past investments today.

The world is not standing still. If we do not recommit to our investments in science education, research, and development, we will be surpassed.

The bill before us fails to secure our Nation's future, and for that reason, I must strenuously oppose it.

I am not alone in my opposition. We have received more than 40 letters or statements of concern or outright opposition from over 70 different groups, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Association of American Universities, the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, the Business Council for Sustainable Energy, the Coalition for National Science Funding, the STEM Education Coalition, the Truman National Security Project, and many, many others. I will

put the full list of these organizations in the Record at this time.

75 ORGANIZATIONS IN OPPOSITION TO H.R. 1806, THE AMERICA COMPETES REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2015

1. Alliance to Save Energy

2. American Academy of Political and Social Science

3. American Anthropological Association

4. American Association for the Advancement of Science

5. American Association of Petroleum Geologists

6. American Association of Physics Teachers

7. American Educational Research Association

8. American Geophysical Union

9. American Geosciences Institute

10. American Institute of Biological Sciences

11. American Institute of Physics

12. American Meteorological Society

13. American Physical Society

14. American Political Science Association

15. American Psychological Association

16. American Society for Microbiology

17. American Sociological Association

18. Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies

19. Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography

20. Association of American Universities

21. Association of Population Centers

22. Association of Public and Land-grant Universities

23. AVS: Science & Technology of Materials, Interfaces, and Processing

24. Biophysical Society

25. Business Council for Sustainable Energy

26. Center for Small Business and the Environment

27. Clay Minerals Society

28. Coalition for National Science Funding

29. Computing Research Association

30. Consortium for Ocean Leadership

31. Consortium of Social Science Associations

32. Council of Undergraduate Research

33. Department of Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz

34. Earth Day Network

35. Ecological Society of America

36. Energy Sciences Coalition

37. Environment America

38. Environment and Energy Study Institute

39. Environmental Defense Fund

40. Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology

41. Federation of Associations in Behavioral and Brain Sciences

42. Geological Society of America

43. Incorporated Institutions for Seismology

44. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.

45. Law and Society Association

46. League of Conservation Voters

47. Learning and Education Academic Research Network

48. Michigan State University

49. National Association of Geoscience Teachers

50. National Association of Marine Laboratories

51. National Cave and Karst Research Institute

52. National Ground Water Association

53. Natural Resources Defense Council

54. Nobel Laureates

55. Ohio State University

56. Paleontological Research Institution

57. Pew

58. Population Association of America

59. Princeton University

60. Research!America

61. Seismological Society of America [Page: H3421]

62. Sierra Club

63. Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc.

64. Society of Independent Professional Earth Scientists

65. Soil Science Society of America

66. STEM Education Coalition

67. Taskforce on American Innovation

68. The Optical Society

69. Truman National Security Project--Operation Free

70. Union of Concerned Scientists

71. United States Permafrost Association

72. University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

73. University of Colorado at Boulder

74. University of Michigan

75. Wayne State University.

3:26 PM EDT

Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-TX 30th

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today, I must unfortunately rise in opposition to the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act. It is unfortunate because I was a strong supporter of both the original COMPETES Act, as well as the 2010 reauthorization.

Both of those bills passed with bipartisan support, and both bills reflected the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences' groundbreaking 2005 report, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.''

It is worth reflecting on what the National Academy's panel found and why they made the recommendations they did.

First, the panel that wrote the report was composed of a distinguished group of individuals from industry, academia, and science; and it was headed by the former Lockheed CEO Norm Augustine.

The panel noted that much of America's economic growth and success in the decades following World War II was the direct result of our Nation's sustained investment in research and development. However, they noted that a gathering storm was approaching. America's economic and military competitors around the world had begun to catch up with our Nation's technological lead.

Moreover, research and development budgets in the United States were stagnating. The panel determined that America was sorely in need of a recommitment to research and development in order to maintain our competitive edge.

The Augustine panel gave specific recommendations that we increase R&D spending, revitalize STEM education across the country, and also create and support a new ARPA-E for breakthrough energy research modeled on the renowned DARPA program at the Department of Defense.

The original COMPETES Act implemented these recommendations across the board. Supporting this bill was one of the highlights of my two decades of service here in Congress.

I have highlighted this history because it is important to understand what we are doing here today and why these issues are so important. Since 2010, when we passed the last COMPETES reauthorization, R&D spending in America has begun to stagnate again and, by some measures, even declined.

In the meantime, our economic competitors have doubled down on their investments in research and development. Over the past decade, China has averaged a 23 percent increase in R&D spending each year. Perhaps, not surprisingly, in 2014, China overtook the United States to become the world's largest economic power.

The crisis that the Augustine committee warned us about in 2005 has now arrived.

[Time: 15:30]

What is the response of our majority to this crisis? Absolutely nothing. That is what is in H.R. 1806: absolutely nothing.

H.R. 1806 completely abandons the recommendations of the Augustine committee and the original COMPETES Act. It abandons the legacy of COMPETES by flat-funding R&D investments. It abandons the legacy by slashing funding for the very ARPA-E program envisioned by this committee, the Augustine committee. It abandons that legacy by politicizing the scientific grant-making process and pitting different research disciplines against each other.

I want to be clear about what it is that this majority is abandoning. They are abandoning our future.

America is the greatest nation on Earth, but our greatness is not guaranteed. We have to work for it. We have to do the things that are necessary to ensure a bright future for our country. That means making the same kinds of investments in science and technology that previous generations made. Our predecessors understood what was at stake. They made a commitment to invest in research and development and science education, and we still benefit from those past investments today.

The world is not standing still. If we do not recommit to our investments in science education, research, and development, we will be surpassed.

The bill before us fails to secure our Nation's future, and for that reason, I must strenuously oppose it.

I am not alone in my opposition. We have received more than 40 letters or statements of concern or outright opposition from over 70 different groups, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Association of American Universities, the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, the Business Council for Sustainable Energy, the Coalition for National Science Funding, the STEM Education Coalition, the Truman National Security Project, and many, many others. I will

put the full list of these organizations in the Record at this time.

75 ORGANIZATIONS IN OPPOSITION TO H.R. 1806, THE AMERICA COMPETES REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2015

1. Alliance to Save Energy

2. American Academy of Political and Social Science

3. American Anthropological Association

4. American Association for the Advancement of Science

5. American Association of Petroleum Geologists

6. American Association of Physics Teachers

7. American Educational Research Association

8. American Geophysical Union

9. American Geosciences Institute

10. American Institute of Biological Sciences

11. American Institute of Physics

12. American Meteorological Society

13. American Physical Society

14. American Political Science Association

15. American Psychological Association

16. American Society for Microbiology

17. American Sociological Association

18. Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies

19. Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography

20. Association of American Universities

21. Association of Population Centers

22. Association of Public and Land-grant Universities

23. AVS: Science & Technology of Materials, Interfaces, and Processing

24. Biophysical Society

25. Business Council for Sustainable Energy

26. Center for Small Business and the Environment

27. Clay Minerals Society

28. Coalition for National Science Funding

29. Computing Research Association

30. Consortium for Ocean Leadership

31. Consortium of Social Science Associations

32. Council of Undergraduate Research

33. Department of Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz

34. Earth Day Network

35. Ecological Society of America

36. Energy Sciences Coalition

37. Environment America

38. Environment and Energy Study Institute

39. Environmental Defense Fund

40. Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology

41. Federation of Associations in Behavioral and Brain Sciences

42. Geological Society of America

43. Incorporated Institutions for Seismology

44. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.

45. Law and Society Association

46. League of Conservation Voters

47. Learning and Education Academic Research Network

48. Michigan State University

49. National Association of Geoscience Teachers

50. National Association of Marine Laboratories

51. National Cave and Karst Research Institute

52. National Ground Water Association

53. Natural Resources Defense Council

54. Nobel Laureates

55. Ohio State University

56. Paleontological Research Institution

57. Pew

58. Population Association of America

59. Princeton University

60. Research!America

61. Seismological Society of America [Page: H3421]

62. Sierra Club

63. Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc.

64. Society of Independent Professional Earth Scientists

65. Soil Science Society of America

66. STEM Education Coalition

67. Taskforce on American Innovation

68. The Optical Society

69. Truman National Security Project--Operation Free

70. Union of Concerned Scientists

71. United States Permafrost Association

72. University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

73. University of Colorado at Boulder

74. University of Michigan

75. Wayne State University.

3:26 PM EDT

Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-TX 30th

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today, I must unfortunately rise in opposition to the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act. It is unfortunate because I was a strong supporter of both the original COMPETES Act, as well as the 2010 reauthorization.

Both of those bills passed with bipartisan support, and both bills reflected the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences' groundbreaking 2005 report, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.''

It is worth reflecting on what the National Academy's panel found and why they made the recommendations they did.

First, the panel that wrote the report was composed of a distinguished group of individuals from industry, academia, and science; and it was headed by the former Lockheed CEO Norm Augustine.

The panel noted that much of America's economic growth and success in the decades following World War II was the direct result of our Nation's sustained investment in research and development. However, they noted that a gathering storm was approaching. America's economic and military competitors around the world had begun to catch up with our Nation's technological lead.

Moreover, research and development budgets in the United States were stagnating. The panel determined that America was sorely in need of a recommitment to research and development in order to maintain our competitive edge.

The Augustine panel gave specific recommendations that we increase R&D spending, revitalize STEM education across the country, and also create and support a new ARPA-E for breakthrough energy research modeled on the renowned DARPA program at the Department of Defense.

The original COMPETES Act implemented these recommendations across the board. Supporting this bill was one of the highlights of my two decades of service here in Congress.

I have highlighted this history because it is important to understand what we are doing here today and why these issues are so important. Since 2010, when we passed the last COMPETES reauthorization, R&D spending in America has begun to stagnate again and, by some measures, even declined.

In the meantime, our economic competitors have doubled down on their investments in research and development. Over the past decade, China has averaged a 23 percent increase in R&D spending each year. Perhaps, not surprisingly, in 2014, China overtook the United States to become the world's largest economic power.

The crisis that the Augustine committee warned us about in 2005 has now arrived.

[Time: 15:30]

What is the response of our majority to this crisis? Absolutely nothing. That is what is in H.R. 1806: absolutely nothing.

H.R. 1806 completely abandons the recommendations of the Augustine committee and the original COMPETES Act. It abandons the legacy of COMPETES by flat-funding R&D investments. It abandons the legacy by slashing funding for the very ARPA-E program envisioned by this committee, the Augustine committee. It abandons that legacy by politicizing the scientific grant-making process and pitting different research disciplines against each other.

I want to be clear about what it is that this majority is abandoning. They are abandoning our future.

America is the greatest nation on Earth, but our greatness is not guaranteed. We have to work for it. We have to do the things that are necessary to ensure a bright future for our country. That means making the same kinds of investments in science and technology that previous generations made. Our predecessors understood what was at stake. They made a commitment to invest in research and development and science education, and we still benefit from those past investments today.

The world is not standing still. If we do not recommit to our investments in science education, research, and development, we will be surpassed.

The bill before us fails to secure our Nation's future, and for that reason, I must strenuously oppose it.

I am not alone in my opposition. We have received more than 40 letters or statements of concern or outright opposition from over 70 different groups, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Association of American Universities, the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, the Business Council for Sustainable Energy, the Coalition for National Science Funding, the STEM Education Coalition, the Truman National Security Project, and many, many others. I will

put the full list of these organizations in the Record at this time.

75 ORGANIZATIONS IN OPPOSITION TO H.R. 1806, THE AMERICA COMPETES REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2015

1. Alliance to Save Energy

2. American Academy of Political and Social Science

3. American Anthropological Association

4. American Association for the Advancement of Science

5. American Association of Petroleum Geologists

6. American Association of Physics Teachers

7. American Educational Research Association

8. American Geophysical Union

9. American Geosciences Institute

10. American Institute of Biological Sciences

11. American Institute of Physics

12. American Meteorological Society

13. American Physical Society

14. American Political Science Association

15. American Psychological Association

16. American Society for Microbiology

17. American Sociological Association

18. Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies

19. Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography

20. Association of American Universities

21. Association of Population Centers

22. Association of Public and Land-grant Universities

23. AVS: Science & Technology of Materials, Interfaces, and Processing

24. Biophysical Society

25. Business Council for Sustainable Energy

26. Center for Small Business and the Environment

27. Clay Minerals Society

28. Coalition for National Science Funding

29. Computing Research Association

30. Consortium for Ocean Leadership

31. Consortium of Social Science Associations

32. Council of Undergraduate Research

33. Department of Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz

34. Earth Day Network

35. Ecological Society of America

36. Energy Sciences Coalition

37. Environment America

38. Environment and Energy Study Institute

39. Environmental Defense Fund

40. Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology

41. Federation of Associations in Behavioral and Brain Sciences

42. Geological Society of America

43. Incorporated Institutions for Seismology

44. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.

45. Law and Society Association

46. League of Conservation Voters

47. Learning and Education Academic Research Network

48. Michigan State University

49. National Association of Geoscience Teachers

50. National Association of Marine Laboratories

51. National Cave and Karst Research Institute

52. National Ground Water Association

53. Natural Resources Defense Council

54. Nobel Laureates

55. Ohio State University

56. Paleontological Research Institution

57. Pew

58. Population Association of America

59. Princeton University

60. Research!America

61. Seismological Society of America [Page: H3421]

62. Sierra Club

63. Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc.

64. Society of Independent Professional Earth Scientists

65. Soil Science Society of America

66. STEM Education Coalition

67. Taskforce on American Innovation

68. The Optical Society

69. Truman National Security Project--Operation Free

70. Union of Concerned Scientists

71. United States Permafrost Association

72. University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

73. University of Colorado at Boulder

74. University of Michigan

75. Wayne State University.

3:31 PM EDT

Randy Weber, R-TX 14th

Mr. WEBER of Texas. I thank Chairman Smith for yielding me time to speak on this important legislation that is on the floor today.

Mr. Chair, H.R. 1806, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015, authorizes the science and energy research programs at the Department of Energy, providing funding for research and development conducted in our universities and national labs across the country.

DOE is the largest Federal supporter of basic research in the physical sciences and provides user facilities for over 31,000 scientific researchers each year.

The America COMPETES Act prioritizes funding for the Office of Science, which conducts critical research in high energy physics, advanced scientific computing, biological and environmental research, nuclear physics, fusion energy sciences, and basic energy sciences.

This basic R&D has broad applications for our economy and for our national security, providing tools and user facilities for researchers in all energy fields.

The America COMPETES Act also reauthorizes the Department's applied energy programs in nuclear energy, fossil energy, energy efficiency and renewable energy, and electricity research and development.

By prioritizing research and development in these programs, we can maximize Federal dollars and leave commercialization and deployment to the private sector, Mr. Chairman, which has the most incentive to bring new, cost-effective, and efficient technologies to market.

This legislation is fiscally responsible and cuts funding to lower-priority and duplicative programs like EERE, which has grown by almost 60 percent in the last decade. With our national debt of $18 trillion and rising, Congress must prioritize fundamental research to lay the foundation for the next technological breakthrough.

We simply cannot afford to spend limited Federal dollars on promoting today's technology. This is so yesterday when we do that. Instead of duplicating work that could be done in the private sector, the America COMPETES Act prioritizes basic research and development with broad application to all forms of energy and energy efficiencies.

Mr. Chairman, over the past 5 months, the Science Committee has held hearings on the Department of Energy research and development for advanced nuclear reactors, high-performance computing, energy efficiency and renewable energy, energy storage, and the Department of Energy budget proposal. With limited time, this Science Committee in this Congress has conducted five hearings in support of this legislation, prioritizing oversight of the DOE programs authorized in this bill.

By supporting the America COMPETES Act, Congress can promote fundamental research, build a foundation for the private sector to bring innovative new technologies to market, and grow the American economy.

I urge my colleagues to support the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act.

3:31 PM EDT

Randy Weber, R-TX 14th

Mr. WEBER of Texas. I thank Chairman Smith for yielding me time to speak on this important legislation that is on the floor today.

Mr. Chair, H.R. 1806, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015, authorizes the science and energy research programs at the Department of Energy, providing funding for research and development conducted in our universities and national labs across the country.

DOE is the largest Federal supporter of basic research in the physical sciences and provides user facilities for over 31,000 scientific researchers each year.

The America COMPETES Act prioritizes funding for the Office of Science, which conducts critical research in high energy physics, advanced scientific computing, biological and environmental research, nuclear physics, fusion energy sciences, and basic energy sciences.

This basic R&D has broad applications for our economy and for our national security, providing tools and user facilities for researchers in all energy fields.

The America COMPETES Act also reauthorizes the Department's applied energy programs in nuclear energy, fossil energy, energy efficiency and renewable energy, and electricity research and development.

By prioritizing research and development in these programs, we can maximize Federal dollars and leave commercialization and deployment to the private sector, Mr. Chairman, which has the most incentive to bring new, cost-effective, and efficient technologies to market.

This legislation is fiscally responsible and cuts funding to lower-priority and duplicative programs like EERE, which has grown by almost 60 percent in the last decade. With our national debt of $18 trillion and rising, Congress must prioritize fundamental research to lay the foundation for the next technological breakthrough.

We simply cannot afford to spend limited Federal dollars on promoting today's technology. This is so yesterday when we do that. Instead of duplicating work that could be done in the private sector, the America COMPETES Act prioritizes basic research and development with broad application to all forms of energy and energy efficiencies.

Mr. Chairman, over the past 5 months, the Science Committee has held hearings on the Department of Energy research and development for advanced nuclear reactors, high-performance computing, energy efficiency and renewable energy, energy storage, and the Department of Energy budget proposal. With limited time, this Science Committee in this Congress has conducted five hearings in support of this legislation, prioritizing oversight of the DOE programs authorized in this bill.

By supporting the America COMPETES Act, Congress can promote fundamental research, build a foundation for the private sector to bring innovative new technologies to market, and grow the American economy.

I urge my colleagues to support the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act.

3:35 PM EDT

Donna F. Edwards, D-MD 4th

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, it is actually quite disappointing that we are here at this point today. And I join the ranking member and our colleagues on this side of the aisle in opposing this harmful antiscience bill, H.R. 1806.

When I first came into Congress, I was excited because we were actually working on reauthorizing the COMPETES Act. We were making investments in important research and development and technologies for the 21st century. And we were doing that in a bipartisan fashion based on bipartisan scientific and research-based recommendations. But that is not where we are today.

H.R. 1806 contains severe funding cuts to the Department of Energy, including cutting close to one-third of the budget of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and half the budget of ARPA-E. In fact, you could argue that this is not an investment in the 21st century at all: it is a throwback bill to the 20th century.

These cuts are going to cripple our Nation's research into high-impact technologies to generate, store, and use energy and will harm our ability to compete successfully with other countries.

The bill also contains many harmful provisions restricting the Department of Energy, such as a provision preventing the results of any Department of Energy-supported fossil fuel energy research and development from being ``used for regulatory assessments or determinations by Federal regulatory authorities.'' That would essentially bar the EPA or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from using the most current

research results when they set rules to protect our air, our land, and our water.

How unfortunate that this antiscience bill also includes a misguided attempt to impose a level of political review on the National Science Foundation's gold-standard merit review system.

This is the National Science Foundation, not a political organization.

The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.

3:35 PM EDT

Donna F. Edwards, D-MD 4th

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, it is actually quite disappointing that we are here at this point today. And I join the ranking member and our colleagues on this side of the aisle in opposing this harmful antiscience bill, H.R. 1806.

When I first came into Congress, I was excited because we were actually working on reauthorizing the COMPETES Act. We were making investments in important research and development and technologies for the 21st century. And we were doing that in a bipartisan fashion based on bipartisan scientific and research-based recommendations. But that is not where we are today.

H.R. 1806 contains severe funding cuts to the Department of Energy, including cutting close to one-third of the budget of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and half the budget of ARPA-E. In fact, you could argue that this is not an investment in the 21st century at all: it is a throwback bill to the 20th century.

These cuts are going to cripple our Nation's research into high-impact technologies to generate, store, and use energy and will harm our ability to compete successfully with other countries.

The bill also contains many harmful provisions restricting the Department of Energy, such as a provision preventing the results of any Department of Energy-supported fossil fuel energy research and development from being ``used for regulatory assessments or determinations by Federal regulatory authorities.'' That would essentially bar the EPA or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from using the most current

research results when they set rules to protect our air, our land, and our water.

How unfortunate that this antiscience bill also includes a misguided attempt to impose a level of political review on the National Science Foundation's gold-standard merit review system.

This is the National Science Foundation, not a political organization.

The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.

3:35 PM EDT

Donna F. Edwards, D-MD 4th

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, it is actually quite disappointing that we are here at this point today. And I join the ranking member and our colleagues on this side of the aisle in opposing this harmful antiscience bill, H.R. 1806.

When I first came into Congress, I was excited because we were actually working on reauthorizing the COMPETES Act. We were making investments in important research and development and technologies for the 21st century. And we were doing that in a bipartisan fashion based on bipartisan scientific and research-based recommendations. But that is not where we are today.

H.R. 1806 contains severe funding cuts to the Department of Energy, including cutting close to one-third of the budget of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and half the budget of ARPA-E. In fact, you could argue that this is not an investment in the 21st century at all: it is a throwback bill to the 20th century.

These cuts are going to cripple our Nation's research into high-impact technologies to generate, store, and use energy and will harm our ability to compete successfully with other countries.

The bill also contains many harmful provisions restricting the Department of Energy, such as a provision preventing the results of any Department of Energy-supported fossil fuel energy research and development from being ``used for regulatory assessments or determinations by Federal regulatory authorities.'' That would essentially bar the EPA or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from using the most current

research results when they set rules to protect our air, our land, and our water.

How unfortunate that this antiscience bill also includes a misguided attempt to impose a level of political review on the National Science Foundation's gold-standard merit review system.

This is the National Science Foundation, not a political organization.

The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.

3:37 PM EDT

Donna F. Edwards, D-MD 4th

Ms. EDWARDS. This is a dangerous proposal that would stifle the kind of high-risk, outside-the-box thinking that has put the United States on the cutting edge of scientific research.

If this bill were to become law, it would eliminate valuable and scientifically sound research on climate change within the Department of Energy under the guise of a cost-cutting measure.

After all, Mr. Chairman, isn't that what this is about? It is about the other side just not believing in climate change, despite the science.

In addition to all of the dangerous and harmful things that this bill does do, it lacks any substantively helpful provisions in a number of areas.

I actually proposed an amendment that would simply look at our 21st century workforce by supporting research at minority-serving institutions, growing STEM fields for young people who we know have to go into the 21st century workforce. It flat-funds the education directorate at the National Science Foundation.

I can't think of anything more harmful than doing a COMPETES legislation that is, at its core, the most anticompetitive legislation that could be put on this floor. It is a danger to the 21st century.

3:38 PM EDT

Steve Scalise, R-LA 1st

Mr. SCALISE. I thank my colleague, the chairman from Texas, for yielding and for his leadership in bringing the America COMPETES Act to the floor.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the America COMPETES Act. If you look at what we are trying to do here, we want America to maintain our competitive edge, to create good-paying jobs here at home. But to do that, we need to invest wisely and responsibly in basic scientific research.

After years of overspending and the administration expanding programs way beyond the core missions of the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy, the COMPETES Act prioritizes taxpayer dollars to support basic research in biology, chemistry, math, engineering, and computer science. American taxpayers' dollars are being spent on programs that do [Page: H3422]

not meet the national interest or help invest in our future.

I want to point out some of the wasteful spending that is being eliminated by this legislation, the America COMPETES Act.

Mr. Chairman, $340,000 of taxpayer money is being spent to study human-set fires in New Zealand in the 1800s--taxpayer dollars here in America are being spent on that; $50,000 to study civil lawsuits in Peru from 1600 to 1700; $487,000 to study textiles and gender in Iceland from 874-1800, during the Viking era; $697,000 for ``The Great Immensity,'' a musical about climate change.

This is what taxpayer dollars are being spent on, Mr. Chairman, at a time when Americans are tightening their belts and are looking to Washington to do what they are doing in being fiscally responsible.

This refocuses what we are supposed to be trying to do to promote science, to promote computer science, as a computer scientist, the things that are going to help American workers be successful--not all of this foolishness that is wasting taxpayer money. It is a great bill that actually prioritizes the taxpayer dollars of this country. I urge my colleagues to pass it.

3:38 PM EDT

Steve Scalise, R-LA 1st

Mr. SCALISE. I thank my colleague, the chairman from Texas, for yielding and for his leadership in bringing the America COMPETES Act to the floor.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the America COMPETES Act. If you look at what we are trying to do here, we want America to maintain our competitive edge, to create good-paying jobs here at home. But to do that, we need to invest wisely and responsibly in basic scientific research.

After years of overspending and the administration expanding programs way beyond the core missions of the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy, the COMPETES Act prioritizes taxpayer dollars to support basic research in biology, chemistry, math, engineering, and computer science. American taxpayers' dollars are being spent on programs that do [Page: H3422]

not meet the national interest or help invest in our future.

I want to point out some of the wasteful spending that is being eliminated by this legislation, the America COMPETES Act.

Mr. Chairman, $340,000 of taxpayer money is being spent to study human-set fires in New Zealand in the 1800s--taxpayer dollars here in America are being spent on that; $50,000 to study civil lawsuits in Peru from 1600 to 1700; $487,000 to study textiles and gender in Iceland from 874-1800, during the Viking era; $697,000 for ``The Great Immensity,'' a musical about climate change.

This is what taxpayer dollars are being spent on, Mr. Chairman, at a time when Americans are tightening their belts and are looking to Washington to do what they are doing in being fiscally responsible.

This refocuses what we are supposed to be trying to do to promote science, to promote computer science, as a computer scientist, the things that are going to help American workers be successful--not all of this foolishness that is wasting taxpayer money. It is a great bill that actually prioritizes the taxpayer dollars of this country. I urge my colleagues to pass it.

3:41 PM EDT

Steny Hoyer, D-MD 5th

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the COMPETES Reauthorization Act, which is an attempt to disinvest, in my view, in research, innovation, and education at a time when we ought to be investing in those areas even more greatly.

This bill places our competitiveness at a serious risk over the long term. The public must be awfully confused, I understand, by both sides claiming that they are enhancing research. Many interest groups, however, disagree with our Republican friends.

I had hoped that this year's COMPETES legislation would have been written so that we could continue the tradition of the strong bipartisan support that it received in 2007 and 2010. Overwhelmingly, Republicans voted for these bills initially and the reauthorization.

Unfortunately, the severe cuts and partisan policy changes it makes preclude that from happening. The Republicans who wrote this legislation have decided that they know better than America's scientists and innovators. They arbitrarily pick and choose research programs they like at the expense of those they ideologically oppose--in other words, not peer review but political review. And they cut key areas of research far below the levels appropriated for fiscal year 2015, including the Manufacturing

Extension Partnership program and R&D for renewable energy technologies.

How ironic that we have an R&D bill on the floor and they are cutting R&D technology here.

Furthermore, this bill would slash our investments in the cutting edge ARPA-E program by 50 percent, which funds high-risk and high-reward research in energy technologies that might not otherwise be pursued.

Now, of course, if global warming is not an issue, who cares.

This bill, though called the America COMPETES Act, really ought to be titled the Everyone Else Competes Act because it will cause us to fall farther and farther behind our overseas competitors, who are already far outpacing us in how much they invest in science and technology research.

Alongside this bill today, the House also is considering a bill that tries to do something many of us agree ought to be done but it does it in a fiscally irresponsible way. I am opposing and urge my colleagues to oppose making the R&D tax credit permanent because we ought to pay for it, Mr. Chairman--not make our children and grandchildren pay for it.

Over and over and over again, the Republicans claim that the tax cuts that they are passing will pay for themselves. I came here in 1981. That was the claim. Under President Reagan, we increased the debt 189 percent.

The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.

3:41 PM EDT

Steny Hoyer, D-MD 5th

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the COMPETES Reauthorization Act, which is an attempt to disinvest, in my view, in research, innovation, and education at a time when we ought to be investing in those areas even more greatly.

This bill places our competitiveness at a serious risk over the long term. The public must be awfully confused, I understand, by both sides claiming that they are enhancing research. Many interest groups, however, disagree with our Republican friends.

I had hoped that this year's COMPETES legislation would have been written so that we could continue the tradition of the strong bipartisan support that it received in 2007 and 2010. Overwhelmingly, Republicans voted for these bills initially and the reauthorization.

Unfortunately, the severe cuts and partisan policy changes it makes preclude that from happening. The Republicans who wrote this legislation have decided that they know better than America's scientists and innovators. They arbitrarily pick and choose research programs they like at the expense of those they ideologically oppose--in other words, not peer review but political review. And they cut key areas of research far below the levels appropriated for fiscal year 2015, including the Manufacturing

Extension Partnership program and R&D for renewable energy technologies.

How ironic that we have an R&D bill on the floor and they are cutting R&D technology here.

Furthermore, this bill would slash our investments in the cutting edge ARPA-E program by 50 percent, which funds high-risk and high-reward research in energy technologies that might not otherwise be pursued.

Now, of course, if global warming is not an issue, who cares.

This bill, though called the America COMPETES Act, really ought to be titled the Everyone Else Competes Act because it will cause us to fall farther and farther behind our overseas competitors, who are already far outpacing us in how much they invest in science and technology research.

Alongside this bill today, the House also is considering a bill that tries to do something many of us agree ought to be done but it does it in a fiscally irresponsible way. I am opposing and urge my colleagues to oppose making the R&D tax credit permanent because we ought to pay for it, Mr. Chairman--not make our children and grandchildren pay for it.

Over and over and over again, the Republicans claim that the tax cuts that they are passing will pay for themselves. I came here in 1981. That was the claim. Under President Reagan, we increased the debt 189 percent.

The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.

3:45 PM EDT

Steny Hoyer, D-MD 5th

Mr. HOYER. They are right about that, and I support the R&D being made permanent--if we pay for it. That is a principle the American public expects us to pursue. Many Democrats agree as well.

However, what will be an even greater benefit to the economy is for Congress to set aside the misguided mantra that tax cuts pay for themselves and, instead, put America's fiscal house in order. Let's start a real conversation about fixing our broken Tax Code in a fiscally sustainable way. Passing this R&D tax credit will undermine that effort.

I am urging my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who care deeply about fiscal sustainability, about tax reform, and about economic competitiveness to oppose these bills.

3:45 PM EDT

Paul Tonko, D-NY 20th

Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1806, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act. The original [Page: H3423]

COMPETES Act was visionary in its commitment to increased R&D funding, and I strongly believe we should continue to increase funding for worthwhile investments in our Nation's future. However, I have serious concerns with this bill that the majority has offered.

In 2010, as a member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, I had the opportunity to work on a truly bipartisan reauthorization of COMPETES. We worked together and chose to make certain that we innovate and we made certain that we would compete.

This year I returned to the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, excited to again work on a smart and targeted COMPETES reauthorization. Unfortunately, there was no bipartisan process, and the result is a bill that does not live up to the original COMPETES vision. It would be more appropriately named the ``America Concedes'' bill. Why? Because at a time when the rest of the world is taking extraordinary steps to innovate, this bill would have America do the opposite. Its efforts are misguided,

at the least. Major areas of research are not adequately funded, and the policy changes would take us in the wrong direction.

Mr. Chair, I am concerned by the majority's fixation on allocating funding for NSF by directorate. This creates a dangerous precedent in denying NSF adequate flexibility and instead places political whims ahead of the need to independently foster true innovative research. I am also concerned by the effort to impose political review on NSF's gold-standard merit review system. The scientific community in our Nation and around the world agrees that NSF's review system works, and works very well.

So why would we make it more difficult to encourage high risk, high rewards research?

Instead, we should be increasing research funding, providing NSF the appropriate flexibility to fund innovative research, and we should be investing in a

sustained commitment to STEM education. My district needs and deserves STEM as an education process. It doesn't want simple buzzwords. It wants a real STEM education effort.

As a nation, we are woefully underproducing scientists and engineers. In order to remain a competitive global economic power in the 21st century, we must place a strong focus on STEM education. Instead, this bill provides flat funding for STEM education along with increased administrative burdens. That is not a commitment to STEM education. In practical terms, it is a decrease in funding.

I am also concerned by the cuts in funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program and by the strike in funding for the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation, or NNMI. These initiatives are smart investments and opportunities for our Nation to truly collaborate, to compete, and to be truly cutting-edge. This bill denies our American pioneer spirit.

The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.

3:46 PM EDT

Paul Tonko, D-NY 20th

Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1806, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act. The original [Page: H3423]

COMPETES Act was visionary in its commitment to increased R&D funding, and I strongly believe we should continue to increase funding for worthwhile investments in our Nation's future. However, I have serious concerns with this bill that the majority has offered.

In 2010, as a member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, I had the opportunity to work on a truly bipartisan reauthorization of COMPETES. We worked together and chose to make certain that we innovate and we made certain that we would compete.

This year I returned to the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, excited to again work on a smart and targeted COMPETES reauthorization. Unfortunately, there was no bipartisan process, and the result is a bill that does not live up to the original COMPETES vision. It would be more appropriately named the ``America Concedes'' bill. Why? Because at a time when the rest of the world is taking extraordinary steps to innovate, this bill would have America do the opposite. Its efforts are misguided,

at the least. Major areas of research are not adequately funded, and the policy changes would take us in the wrong direction.

Mr. Chair, I am concerned by the majority's fixation on allocating funding for NSF by directorate. This creates a dangerous precedent in denying NSF adequate flexibility and instead places political whims ahead of the need to independently foster true innovative research. I am also concerned by the effort to impose political review on NSF's gold-standard merit review system. The scientific community in our Nation and around the world agrees that NSF's review system works, and works very well.

So why would we make it more difficult to encourage high risk, high rewards research?

Instead, we should be increasing research funding, providing NSF the appropriate flexibility to fund innovative research, and we should be investing in a

sustained commitment to STEM education. My district needs and deserves STEM as an education process. It doesn't want simple buzzwords. It wants a real STEM education effort.

As a nation, we are woefully underproducing scientists and engineers. In order to remain a competitive global economic power in the 21st century, we must place a strong focus on STEM education. Instead, this bill provides flat funding for STEM education along with increased administrative burdens. That is not a commitment to STEM education. In practical terms, it is a decrease in funding.

I am also concerned by the cuts in funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program and by the strike in funding for the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation, or NNMI. These initiatives are smart investments and opportunities for our Nation to truly collaborate, to compete, and to be truly cutting-edge. This bill denies our American pioneer spirit.

The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.

3:46 PM EDT

Paul Tonko, D-NY 20th

Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1806, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act. The original [Page: H3423]

COMPETES Act was visionary in its commitment to increased R&D funding, and I strongly believe we should continue to increase funding for worthwhile investments in our Nation's future. However, I have serious concerns with this bill that the majority has offered.

In 2010, as a member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, I had the opportunity to work on a truly bipartisan reauthorization of COMPETES. We worked together and chose to make certain that we innovate and we made certain that we would compete.

This year I returned to the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, excited to again work on a smart and targeted COMPETES reauthorization. Unfortunately, there was no bipartisan process, and the result is a bill that does not live up to the original COMPETES vision. It would be more appropriately named the ``America Concedes'' bill. Why? Because at a time when the rest of the world is taking extraordinary steps to innovate, this bill would have America do the opposite. Its efforts are misguided,

at the least. Major areas of research are not adequately funded, and the policy changes would take us in the wrong direction.

Mr. Chair, I am concerned by the majority's fixation on allocating funding for NSF by directorate. This creates a dangerous precedent in denying NSF adequate flexibility and instead places political whims ahead of the need to independently foster true innovative research. I am also concerned by the effort to impose political review on NSF's gold-standard merit review system. The scientific community in our Nation and around the world agrees that NSF's review system works, and works very well.

So why would we make it more difficult to encourage high risk, high rewards research?

Instead, we should be increasing research funding, providing NSF the appropriate flexibility to fund innovative research, and we should be investing in a

sustained commitment to STEM education. My district needs and deserves STEM as an education process. It doesn't want simple buzzwords. It wants a real STEM education effort.

As a nation, we are woefully underproducing scientists and engineers. In order to remain a competitive global economic power in the 21st century, we must place a strong focus on STEM education. Instead, this bill provides flat funding for STEM education along with increased administrative burdens. That is not a commitment to STEM education. In practical terms, it is a decrease in funding.

I am also concerned by the cuts in funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program and by the strike in funding for the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation, or NNMI. These initiatives are smart investments and opportunities for our Nation to truly collaborate, to compete, and to be truly cutting-edge. This bill denies our American pioneer spirit.

The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.

3:46 PM EDT

Steve Knight, R-CA 25th

Mr. KNIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the America COMPETES Act, and I would like to thank the chair for his leadership in this field.

Mr. Chairman, today the Federal Government spends about $3 billion across STEM education efforts. This bill creates a new STEM education advisory panel to provide feedback and advise the President and Federal agencies with STEM programs to better inform plans and budgets. The bill directs that STEM education efforts are to be coordinated across the Federal Government to limit duplication. Industry also recognizes the benefits of STEM. This is evidenced by its support of various STEM programs

with equipment, facilities, and volunteers.

In my district alone, aerospace thrives with high-technical, high-paying jobs. Without STEM, without reaching out with STEM education, we don't get those folks to jump in there. We have to talk about other things like visas and bringing people in for these types of jobs instead of working with our kids to get them educated and moving toward a good career.

This bill provides for grants for research on STEM programming that engages underrepresented students. Again, in my district, we have the Lancaster Robotics Team. It started more than 10 years ago. When it started, it was about 2 percent women, or 2 percent girls; today it is over 40 percent. Forty percent of the Lancaster Robotics Team is girls working towards a STEM degree, working towards an engineering degree, a mathematics degree, and a computer science degree. Again, aerospace brings many

of the highest paying and most technical jobs not just to my district, but to this country.

Mr. Chairman, STEM education is not just a buzzword; it is something that actually works. STEM education is the lifeblood for what we do in a high technical society. If we don't do it, someone else will. We should do it right here in America. I ask for an ``aye'' vote.

3:46 PM EDT

Steve Knight, R-CA 25th

Mr. KNIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the America COMPETES Act, and I would like to thank the chair for his leadership in this field.

Mr. Chairman, today the Federal Government spends about $3 billion across STEM education efforts. This bill creates a new STEM education advisory panel to provide feedback and advise the President and Federal agencies with STEM programs to better inform plans and budgets. The bill directs that STEM education efforts are to be coordinated across the Federal Government to limit duplication. Industry also recognizes the benefits of STEM. This is evidenced by its support of various STEM programs

with equipment, facilities, and volunteers.

In my district alone, aerospace thrives with high-technical, high-paying jobs. Without STEM, without reaching out with STEM education, we don't get those folks to jump in there. We have to talk about other things like visas and bringing people in for these types of jobs instead of working with our kids to get them educated and moving toward a good career.

This bill provides for grants for research on STEM programming that engages underrepresented students. Again, in my district, we have the Lancaster Robotics Team. It started more than 10 years ago. When it started, it was about 2 percent women, or 2 percent girls; today it is over 40 percent. Forty percent of the Lancaster Robotics Team is girls working towards a STEM degree, working towards an engineering degree, a mathematics degree, and a computer science degree. Again, aerospace brings many

of the highest paying and most technical jobs not just to my district, but to this country.

Mr. Chairman, STEM education is not just a buzzword; it is something that actually works. STEM education is the lifeblood for what we do in a high technical society. If we don't do it, someone else will. We should do it right here in America. I ask for an ``aye'' vote.

3:48 PM EDT

Paul Tonko, D-NY 20th

Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1806, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act. The original [Page: H3423]

COMPETES Act was visionary in its commitment to increased R&D funding, and I strongly believe we should continue to increase funding for worthwhile investments in our Nation's future. However, I have serious concerns with this bill that the majority has offered.

In 2010, as a member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, I had the opportunity to work on a truly bipartisan reauthorization of COMPETES. We worked together and chose to make certain that we innovate and we made certain that we would compete.

This year I returned to the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, excited to again work on a smart and targeted COMPETES reauthorization. Unfortunately, there was no bipartisan process, and the result is a bill that does not live up to the original COMPETES vision. It would be more appropriately named the ``America Concedes'' bill. Why? Because at a time when the rest of the world is taking extraordinary steps to innovate, this bill would have America do the opposite. Its efforts are misguided,

at the least. Major areas of research are not adequately funded, and the policy changes would take us in the wrong direction.

Mr. Chair, I am concerned by the majority's fixation on allocating funding for NSF by directorate. This creates a dangerous precedent in denying NSF adequate flexibility and instead places political whims ahead of the need to independently foster true innovative research. I am also concerned by the effort to impose political review on NSF's gold-standard merit review system. The scientific community in our Nation and around the world agrees that NSF's review system works, and works very well.

So why would we make it more difficult to encourage high risk, high rewards research?

Instead, we should be increasing research funding, providing NSF the appropriate flexibility to fund innovative research, and we should be investing in a

sustained commitment to STEM education. My district needs and deserves STEM as an education process. It doesn't want simple buzzwords. It wants a real STEM education effort.

As a nation, we are woefully underproducing scientists and engineers. In order to remain a competitive global economic power in the 21st century, we must place a strong focus on STEM education. Instead, this bill provides flat funding for STEM education along with increased administrative burdens. That is not a commitment to STEM education. In practical terms, it is a decrease in funding.

I am also concerned by the cuts in funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program and by the strike in funding for the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation, or NNMI. These initiatives are smart investments and opportunities for our Nation to truly collaborate, to compete, and to be truly cutting-edge. This bill denies our American pioneer spirit.

The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.

3:48 PM EDT

Paul Tonko, D-NY 20th

Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1806, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act. The original [Page: H3423]

COMPETES Act was visionary in its commitment to increased R&D funding, and I strongly believe we should continue to increase funding for worthwhile investments in our Nation's future. However, I have serious concerns with this bill that the majority has offered.

In 2010, as a member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, I had the opportunity to work on a truly bipartisan reauthorization of COMPETES. We worked together and chose to make certain that we innovate and we made certain that we would compete.

This year I returned to the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, excited to again work on a smart and targeted COMPETES reauthorization. Unfortunately, there was no bipartisan process, and the result is a bill that does not live up to the original COMPETES vision. It would be more appropriately named the ``America Concedes'' bill. Why? Because at a time when the rest of the world is taking extraordinary steps to innovate, this bill would have America do the opposite. Its efforts are misguided,

at the least. Major areas of research are not adequately funded, and the policy changes would take us in the wrong direction.

Mr. Chair, I am concerned by the majority's fixation on allocating funding for NSF by directorate. This creates a dangerous precedent in denying NSF adequate flexibility and instead places political whims ahead of the need to independently foster true innovative research. I am also concerned by the effort to impose political review on NSF's gold-standard merit review system. The scientific community in our Nation and around the world agrees that NSF's review system works, and works very well.

So why would we make it more difficult to encourage high risk, high rewards research?

Instead, we should be increasing research funding, providing NSF the appropriate flexibility to fund innovative research, and we should be investing in a

sustained commitment to STEM education. My district needs and deserves STEM as an education process. It doesn't want simple buzzwords. It wants a real STEM education effort.

As a nation, we are woefully underproducing scientists and engineers. In order to remain a competitive global economic power in the 21st century, we must place a strong focus on STEM education. Instead, this bill provides flat funding for STEM education along with increased administrative burdens. That is not a commitment to STEM education. In practical terms, it is a decrease in funding.

I am also concerned by the cuts in funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program and by the strike in funding for the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation, or NNMI. These initiatives are smart investments and opportunities for our Nation to truly collaborate, to compete, and to be truly cutting-edge. This bill denies our American pioneer spirit.

The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.

3:48 PM EDT

Paul Tonko, D-NY 20th

Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1806, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act. The original [Page: H3423]

COMPETES Act was visionary in its commitment to increased R&D funding, and I strongly believe we should continue to increase funding for worthwhile investments in our Nation's future. However, I have serious concerns with this bill that the majority has offered.

In 2010, as a member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, I had the opportunity to work on a truly bipartisan reauthorization of COMPETES. We worked together and chose to make certain that we innovate and we made certain that we would compete.

This year I returned to the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, excited to again work on a smart and targeted COMPETES reauthorization. Unfortunately, there was no bipartisan process, and the result is a bill that does not live up to the original COMPETES vision. It would be more appropriately named the ``America Concedes'' bill. Why? Because at a time when the rest of the world is taking extraordinary steps to innovate, this bill would have America do the opposite. Its efforts are misguided,

at the least. Major areas of research are not adequately funded, and the policy changes would take us in the wrong direction.

Mr. Chair, I am concerned by the majority's fixation on allocating funding for NSF by directorate. This creates a dangerous precedent in denying NSF adequate flexibility and instead places political whims ahead of the need to independently foster true innovative research. I am also concerned by the effort to impose political review on NSF's gold-standard merit review system. The scientific community in our Nation and around the world agrees that NSF's review system works, and works very well.

So why would we make it more difficult to encourage high risk, high rewards research?

Instead, we should be increasing research funding, providing NSF the appropriate flexibility to fund innovative research, and we should be investing in a

sustained commitment to STEM education. My district needs and deserves STEM as an education process. It doesn't want simple buzzwords. It wants a real STEM education effort.

As a nation, we are woefully underproducing scientists and engineers. In order to remain a competitive global economic power in the 21st century, we must place a strong focus on STEM education. Instead, this bill provides flat funding for STEM education along with increased administrative burdens. That is not a commitment to STEM education. In practical terms, it is a decrease in funding.

I am also concerned by the cuts in funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program and by the strike in funding for the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation, or NNMI. These initiatives are smart investments and opportunities for our Nation to truly collaborate, to compete, and to be truly cutting-edge. This bill denies our American pioneer spirit.

The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.

3:48 PM EDT

Paul Tonko, D-NY 20th

Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1806, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act. The original [Page: H3423]

COMPETES Act was visionary in its commitment to increased R&D funding, and I strongly believe we should continue to increase funding for worthwhile investments in our Nation's future. However, I have serious concerns with this bill that the majority has offered.

In 2010, as a member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, I had the opportunity to work on a truly bipartisan reauthorization of COMPETES. We worked together and chose to make certain that we innovate and we made certain that we would compete.

This year I returned to the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, excited to again work on a smart and targeted COMPETES reauthorization. Unfortunately, there was no bipartisan process, and the result is a bill that does not live up to the original COMPETES vision. It would be more appropriately named the ``America Concedes'' bill. Why? Because at a time when the rest of the world is taking extraordinary steps to innovate, this bill would have America do the opposite. Its efforts are misguided,

at the least. Major areas of research are not adequately funded, and the policy changes would take us in the wrong direction.

Mr. Chair, I am concerned by the majority's fixation on allocating funding for NSF by directorate. This creates a dangerous precedent in denying NSF adequate flexibility and instead places political whims ahead of the need to independently foster true innovative research. I am also concerned by the effort to impose political review on NSF's gold-standard merit review system. The scientific community in our Nation and around the world agrees that NSF's review system works, and works very well.

So why would we make it more difficult to encourage high risk, high rewards research?

Instead, we should be increasing research funding, providing NSF the appropriate flexibility to fund innovative research, and we should be investing in a

sustained commitment to STEM education. My district needs and deserves STEM as an education process. It doesn't want simple buzzwords. It wants a real STEM education effort.

As a nation, we are woefully underproducing scientists and engineers. In order to remain a competitive global economic power in the 21st century, we must place a strong focus on STEM education. Instead, this bill provides flat funding for STEM education along with increased administrative burdens. That is not a commitment to STEM education. In practical terms, it is a decrease in funding.

I am also concerned by the cuts in funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program and by the strike in funding for the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation, or NNMI. These initiatives are smart investments and opportunities for our Nation to truly collaborate, to compete, and to be truly cutting-edge. This bill denies our American pioneer spirit.

The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.

3:52 PM EDT

Paul Tonko, D-NY 20th

Mr. TONKO. This bill also makes huge cuts to funding for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy research and development as well as the funding for ARPA-E. These cuts ignore the reality that a modern society needs energy, and the only way we are going to meet our energy challenge is through smart investments in research and development.

Energy is essential to our economy, and if we pull back resources and do not invest, we will put our economic and national security at risk. We will also not meet the energy challenge if we blindly ignore existing research and refuse to access the most up-to-date information.

We also cannot solve our budget deficit with these types of cuts. In fact, they are more likely to make the problem worse. The best way to reduce our budget deficit is by fostering new businesses and industries that generate economic wealth, revenue, and jobs, and the fuel for that task is research and development. We are missing a golden opportunity with this measure. For these reasons I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

3:53 PM EDT

Brian Babin, R-TX 36th

Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1806, the America COMPETES Act.

Mr. Chairman, when the American people pay their taxes, they expect their tax dollars to be spent effectively and efficiently. Too often that has not been the case across government, and there is nothing worse than seeing taxes taken out of their paychecks and wasted. Not only is that fiscally irresponsible, it is insulting to the taxpayers.

The bill before us is fiscally responsible and takes important steps to cut wasteful spending. Traditionally, when the National Science Foundation was mentioned, Americans thought of hard sciences--basic research, advanced technologies in biology, engineering, mathematics, and the physical sciences. It is investments in these fields that advance American technology and help the United States maintain its competitive edge.

Unfortunately, some recent National Science Foundation expenditures have brought widespread criticism to the NSF and its priorities. There was the expenditure, for example, of $856,000 on a grant to teach three captive mountain lions how to use a treadmill. NSF spent another $387,000 on a mechanical device that simulates Swedish massages for rabbits. This is unquestionably a waste of taxpayer money, particularly when we are over $18 trillion in debt.

Our bill cuts spending on lower priority government social and behavioral programs at the National Science Foundation by 45 percent, saving taxpayer dollars and setting a higher priority on the harder sciences. The American people want Washington to be responsible with their money, and when Federal agencies get out of hand, they need to be reined in, and our bill does just that.

I want to thank Chairman Smith and his staff for their hard work and leadership on this bill, and I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

3:53 PM EDT

Brian Babin, R-TX 36th

Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1806, the America COMPETES Act.

Mr. Chairman, when the American people pay their taxes, they expect their tax dollars to be spent effectively and efficiently. Too often that has not been the case across government, and there is nothing worse than seeing taxes taken out of their paychecks and wasted. Not only is that fiscally irresponsible, it is insulting to the taxpayers.

The bill before us is fiscally responsible and takes important steps to cut wasteful spending. Traditionally, when the National Science Foundation was mentioned, Americans thought of hard sciences--basic research, advanced technologies in biology, engineering, mathematics, and the physical sciences. It is investments in these fields that advance American technology and help the United States maintain its competitive edge.

Unfortunately, some recent National Science Foundation expenditures have brought widespread criticism to the NSF and its priorities. There was the expenditure, for example, of $856,000 on a grant to teach three captive mountain lions how to use a treadmill. NSF spent another $387,000 on a mechanical device that simulates Swedish massages for rabbits. This is unquestionably a waste of taxpayer money, particularly when we are over $18 trillion in debt.

Our bill cuts spending on lower priority government social and behavioral programs at the National Science Foundation by 45 percent, saving taxpayer dollars and setting a higher priority on the harder sciences. The American people want Washington to be responsible with their money, and when Federal agencies get out of hand, they need to be reined in, and our bill does just that.

I want to thank Chairman Smith and his staff for their hard work and leadership on this bill, and I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

3:55 PM EDT

Katherine M. Clark, D-MA 5th

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for yielding.

Bentley University is a renowned business school in my district, and when a class from Bentley visited me just a few weeks ago, they were advocating for a critical underpinning of our economy. These students came to discuss the importance of funding the geosciences in the NSF. Why? Because it is good business.

These students and the business community understand the critical role that geoscience has in disaster resilience, helping us to address drought, looking at solar storms that can cripple our electric grid, impacts on fisheries and ocean health, and in maintaining agriculture and in healthy soil.

Business leaders know that extreme weather like hurricanes, droughts, tornadoes, and landslides result in billions of dollars in damage, and by using what we learn from geoscience, we can identify ways to mitigate these costs and save us money. Business leaders understand this connection, so why doesn't Congress?

Rather than support investment in geoscience research, this legislation specifically targets it for drastic cuts in funding. Climate change is real. Human activity contributes to it, and it is bad for the bottom line. It is irresponsible for us to cut funding for research that helps us understand what is happening and how to address it.

Adequately funding geoscience research is critical to protecting and growing our economy and to the security of the American people. Let's vote for our economy, let's vote for our security, and let's reject this bill.

3:56 PM EDT

Katherine M. Clark, D-MA 5th

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for yielding.

Bentley University is a renowned business school in my district, and when a class from Bentley visited me just a few weeks ago, they were advocating for a critical underpinning of our economy. These students came to discuss the importance of funding the geosciences in the NSF. Why? Because it is good business.

These students and the business community understand the critical role that geoscience has in disaster resilience, helping us to address drought, looking at solar storms that can cripple our electric grid, impacts on fisheries and ocean health, and in maintaining agriculture and in healthy soil.

Business leaders know that extreme weather like hurricanes, droughts, tornadoes, and landslides result in billions of dollars in damage, and by using what we learn from geoscience, we can identify ways to mitigate these costs and save us money. Business leaders understand this connection, so why doesn't Congress?

Rather than support investment in geoscience research, this legislation specifically targets it for drastic cuts in funding. Climate change is real. Human activity contributes to it, and it is bad for the bottom line. It is irresponsible for us to cut funding for research that helps us understand what is happening and how to address it.

Adequately funding geoscience research is critical to protecting and growing our economy and to the security of the American people. Let's vote for our economy, let's vote for our security, and let's reject this bill.

3:58 PM EDT

Lamar S. Smith, R-TX 21st

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, as set forth in the report that accompanied the Science, Space, and Technology Committee approval of the America COMPETES Act, NSF will maintain full funding for research in the hard science areas of geoscience like deep-ocean drilling and geological research to find new energy resources. What our bill does do is reduce funds that have been used by NSF to fund low priorities like a survey of [Page: H3424]

Norwegian tourism, teaching TV meteorologists

about climate change, and creating climate change video games.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul), my colleague and the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.

[Time: 16:00]

3:59 PM EDT

Michael McCaul, R-TX 10th

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act. In this tough budget environment, I applaud Chairman Smith and the Science, Space, and Technology Committee for crafting a bill that provides for much-needed investments in scientific research in a fiscally responsible manner. By setting priorities and eliminating duplicative activities, we are actually able to increase funding for new and promising research while keeping overall

spending constant.

This bill is designed to secure America's premier status in scientific and technological advancement in several ways. First, it improves our STEM education programs by adding computer sciences to the definition of STEM education, which will allow these programs to be used to train the next generation of high-tech workers and cybersecurity professionals. As our high-tech sector continues to expand in places like my hometown of Austin, it is important to make sure that we are producing enough qualified

workers to fill these jobs.

Second, this bill also helps researchers at our national labs commercialize their discoveries by removing bureaucratic obstacles. This will bring innovative new products to market faster, encouraging job creation and private sector investment.

Most importantly, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act provides a substantial increase in funding for research activities at the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Department of Energy. This will allow the scientists at our universities, such as the University of Texas, to advance our understanding of the physical world and provide the foundation for future innovations by business and new entrepreneurs.

I urge strong support of this bill.

4:01 PM EDT

Ted Lieu, D-CA 33rd

Mr. TED LIEU of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the America COMPETES Act in part because it cuts over $62 million of funding to the hard science of studying the effects of climate change.

The effects of climate change are not a partisan issue. We know that our sea levels have risen by over 6.7 inches in the last century, and they have accelerated in the last decade. Rising sea levels affect not just Democratic districts; it also affects Republican districts.

We can measure with precision that we have had, over 20 years, the hottest records in terms of temperatures in recorded history having occurred since 1980. We know that, in 2012, over 19 States broke the hottest records in their States. More extreme weather events and more weather uncertainty affect not just red States and blue States and purple States, it affects all of America. And that is why, last month, former Reagan Secretary of State George Shultz wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post

saying: Climate change is happening. We need to take action on it, and we need to ensure our future against climate change. He called it the Reagan way. He said that is what President Reagan would have done.

As you know, this America COMPETES Act, the funding for the hard science of the effects of climate change, was put in place under President Bush in 2007. Just today, our President announced what the U.S. military is saying about climate change.

I served on Active Duty in the United States Air Force. I am now 19 years in with the Reserves. One of the amazing strengths of America is that our military is nonpartisan, nonideological; and our military takes the world as it is, not as they hope it to be. Our military does not live in a fantasy world, and they understand that climate change is happening. They know it is a national security threat. They are telling the American public we need to act on climate change now because we can't have

flooding of our bases; we can't have droughts and more severe weather events that cause conflicts in all the parts of the world.

So I ask the American public to trust former Reagan Secretary of State George Shultz, trust President Bush, trust our United States military who are saying climate change is a problem. Keep in mind, our military relies on hard science and technology and all that makes this world possible. So trust our military, and trust everyone who has looked at it. Please reject the America COMPETES Act because we need to deal with climate change. We need to deal with it now.

4:04 PM EDT

John Moolenaar, R-MI 4th

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Mr. Chairman, the America COMPETES Act is good legislation that will help build a better future for our country. The COMPETES Act expands the definition of STEM education to include computer science.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, for every computer science graduate between 2013 and 2023, there will be two jobs available. That is why programs in my district like Go IT, offered free of charge to middle and high school students, are so important to creating career awareness in computer science and other STEM fields.

This legislation increases government accountability. It requires the National Science Foundation grants meet a national interest standard and to publicly justify why they should receive taxpayer dollars. Requiring government agencies to prioritize the national interest is common sense. It enhances accountability to the American people.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of the America COMPETES Act, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

4:04 PM EDT

John Moolenaar, R-MI 4th

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Mr. Chairman, the America COMPETES Act is good legislation that will help build a better future for our country. The COMPETES Act expands the definition of STEM education to include computer science.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, for every computer science graduate between 2013 and 2023, there will be two jobs available. That is why programs in my district like Go IT, offered free of charge to middle and high school students, are so important to creating career awareness in computer science and other STEM fields.

This legislation increases government accountability. It requires the National Science Foundation grants meet a national interest standard and to publicly justify why they should receive taxpayer dollars. Requiring government agencies to prioritize the national interest is common sense. It enhances accountability to the American people.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of the America COMPETES Act, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

4:05 PM EDT

Lamar S. Smith, R-TX 21st

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle today would have you believe that the only way you can be pro-science is to spend more taxpayer money than the Budget Control Act allows. That is irresponsible.

If everything is a priority, then nothing is. Real priorities require making real choices.

If synthetic biology research at NSF is a priority, we should stop using the American people's tax dollars to fund reviews of animal photographs in National Geographic magazine. If robotics and batteries are priorities, we should not continue to spend taxpayer dollars on climate change musicals.

H.R. 1806 proves that we can set priorities, make tough choices, and still invest more in breakthrough research and innovation.

I thank the members of the Science Committee who provided valuable input into H.R. 1806, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015; and that includes the cosponsors of the bill: Committee Vice Chairman Frank Lucas; all of our subcommittee chairs, Barbara Comstock, Randy Weber, Barry Loudermilk, and Jim Bridenstine; as well as Representatives Steve Palazzo, Randy Hultgren, Steve Knight, Brian Babin, and John

Moolenaar.

I urge the adoption of this pro-science, fiscally responsible bill.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the Record an exchange of letters between the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and the Committees on Education and the Workforce, Oversight and Government Reform, and Energy and Commerce.

House of Representatives, Committee on Education and the Workforce

Washington, DC, May 4, 2015.

Hon. LAMAR SMITH,

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

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am writing to confirm our mutual understanding with respect [Page: H3425]

to H.R. 1806, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015. Thank you for consulting with the Committee on Education and the Workforce with regard to H.R. 1806 on those matters within the Committee's jurisdiction.

In the interest of expediting the House's consideration of H.R. 1806, the Committee on Education and the Workforce will forgo further consideration of this bill. However, I do so only with the understanding this procedural route will not be construed to prejudice my Committee's jurisdictional interest and prerogatives on this bill or any other similar legislation and will not be considered as precedent for consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to my Committee in the future.

I respectfully request your support for the appointment of outside conferees from the Committee on Education and the Workforce should this bill or a similar bill be considered in a conference with the Senate. I also request you include our exchange of letters on this matter in the Committee Report on H.R. 1806 and in the Congressional Record during consideration of this bill on the house Floor. Thank you for your attention to these matters.

Sincerely,

John Kline,

Chairman.

--

House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,

Washington, DC, May 4, 2015.

Hon. JOHN KLINE,

Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding the Committee on Education and the Workforce's jurisdictional interest in H.R. 1806, the ``America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015,'' and your willingness to forego consideration of H.R. 1806 by your committee.

I agree that the Committee on Education and the Workforce has a valid jurisdictional interest in certain provisions of H.R. 1806, and that the Committee's jurisdiction will not be adversely affected by your decision to forego consideration of H.R. 1806. As you have requested, I will support your request for an appropriate appointment of outside conferees from your Committee in the event of a House-Senate conference on this or similar legislation should such a conference be convened.

Finally, I will include a copy of your letter and this response in the Committee Report and in the Congressional Record during the floor consideration of this bill. Thank you again for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Lamar Smith,

Chairman.

--

House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,

Washington, DC, May 4, 2015.

Hon. LAMAR SMITH,

Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I write concerning H.R. 1806, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015. As you know, the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology received an original referral and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform a secondary referral when the bill was introduced on April 15, 2015. I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this legislation before the House of Representatives in an expeditious manner, and accordingly, the Committee on Oversight and Government

Reform will forego action on the bill.

The Committee takes this action with our mutual understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 1806 at this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in this or similar legislation. Further, I request your support for the appointment of conferees from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform during any House-Senate conference convened on this or related legislation.

Finally, I would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the bill report filed by the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, as well as in the Congressional Record during floor consideration, to memorialize our understanding.

Sincerely,

Jason Chaffetz,

Chairman.

--

House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,

Washington, DC, May 4, 2015.

Hon. JASON CHAFFETZ,

Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform's jurisdictional interest in H.R. 1806, the ``America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015,'' and your willingness to forego consideration of H.R. 1806 by your committee.

I agree that the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has a valid jurisdictional interest in certain provisions of H.R. 1806, and that the Committee's jurisdiction will not be adversely affected by your decision to forego consideration of H.R. 1806. As you have requested, I will support your request for an appropriate appointment of outside conferees from your Committee in the event of a House-Senate conference on this or similar legislation should such a conference be convened.

Finally, I will include a copy of your letter and this response in the Committee Report and in the Congressional Record during the floor consideration of this bill. Thank you again for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Lamar Smith,

Chairman,

--

House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,

Washington, DC, May 12, 2015.

Hon. FRED UPTON,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding the Committee on Energy and Commerce's jurisdictional interest in H.R. 1806, the ``America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015,'' and your willingness to forego consideration of H.R. 1806 by your committee.

I agree that the Committee on Energy and Commerce has a valid jurisdictional interest in certain provisions of H.R. 1806, and that the Committee's jurisdiction will not be adversely affected by your decision to forego consideration of H.R. 1806. As you have requested, I will support your request for an appropriate appointment of outside conferees from your Committee in the event of a House-Senate conference on this or similar legislation should such a conference be convened.

Finally, I will include a copy of your letter and this response in the Committee Report and in the Congressional Record during the floor consideration of this bill. Thank you again for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Lamar Smith,

Chairman.

--

House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Washington, DC, May 11, 2015.

Hon. LAMAR SMITH,

Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.

DEAR CHAIRMAN SMITH: I write in regard to H.R. 1806, America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015. As you are aware, the bill was referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, but the Committee on Energy and Commerce has a jurisdictional interest in the bill. I wanted to notify you that the Committee on Energy and Commerce will forgo requesting a sequential referral on the bill so that it may proceed expeditiously to the House floor for consideration.

This is done with the understanding that the Committee on Energy and Commerce's jurisdictional interests over this and similar legislation are in no way diminished or altered. In addition, the Committee reserves the right to seek conferees on H.R. 1806 and requests your support when such a request is made.

I would appreciate your response confirming this understanding with respect to H.R. 1806 and ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the Congressional Record during consideration of the bill on the House floor.

Sincerely,

Fred Upton,

Chairman.

4:05 PM EDT

Lamar S. Smith, R-TX 21st

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle today would have you believe that the only way you can be pro-science is to spend more taxpayer money than the Budget Control Act allows. That is irresponsible.

If everything is a priority, then nothing is. Real priorities require making real choices.

If synthetic biology research at NSF is a priority, we should stop using the American people's tax dollars to fund reviews of animal photographs in National Geographic magazine. If robotics and batteries are priorities, we should not continue to spend taxpayer dollars on climate change musicals.

H.R. 1806 proves that we can set priorities, make tough choices, and still invest more in breakthrough research and innovation.

I thank the members of the Science Committee who provided valuable input into H.R. 1806, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015; and that includes the cosponsors of the bill: Committee Vice Chairman Frank Lucas; all of our subcommittee chairs, Barbara Comstock, Randy Weber, Barry Loudermilk, and Jim Bridenstine; as well as Representatives Steve Palazzo, Randy Hultgren, Steve Knight, Brian Babin, and John

Moolenaar.

I urge the adoption of this pro-science, fiscally responsible bill.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the Record an exchange of letters between the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and the Committees on Education and the Workforce, Oversight and Government Reform, and Energy and Commerce.

House of Representatives, Committee on Education and the Workforce

Washington, DC, May 4, 2015.

Hon. LAMAR SMITH,

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

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am writing to confirm our mutual understanding with respect [Page: H3425]

to H.R. 1806, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015. Thank you for consulting with the Committee on Education and the Workforce with regard to H.R. 1806 on those matters within the Committee's jurisdiction.

In the interest of expediting the House's consideration of H.R. 1806, the Committee on Education and the Workforce will forgo further consideration of this bill. However, I do so only with the understanding this procedural route will not be construed to prejudice my Committee's jurisdictional interest and prerogatives on this bill or any other similar legislation and will not be considered as precedent for consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to my Committee in the future.

I respectfully request your support for the appointment of outside conferees from the Committee on Education and the Workforce should this bill or a similar bill be considered in a conference with the Senate. I also request you include our exchange of letters on this matter in the Committee Report on H.R. 1806 and in the Congressional Record during consideration of this bill on the house Floor. Thank you for your attention to these matters.

Sincerely,

John Kline,

Chairman.

--

House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,

Washington, DC, May 4, 2015.

Hon. JOHN KLINE,

Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding the Committee on Education and the Workforce's jurisdictional interest in H.R. 1806, the ``America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015,'' and your willingness to forego consideration of H.R. 1806 by your committee.

I agree that the Committee on Education and the Workforce has a valid jurisdictional interest in certain provisions of H.R. 1806, and that the Committee's jurisdiction will not be adversely affected by your decision to forego consideration of H.R. 1806. As you have requested, I will support your request for an appropriate appointment of outside conferees from your Committee in the event of a House-Senate conference on this or similar legislation should such a conference be convened.

Finally, I will include a copy of your letter and this response in the Committee Report and in the Congressional Record during the floor consideration of this bill. Thank you again for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Lamar Smith,

Chairman.

--

House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,

Washington, DC, May 4, 2015.

Hon. LAMAR SMITH,

Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I write concerning H.R. 1806, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015. As you know, the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology received an original referral and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform a secondary referral when the bill was introduced on April 15, 2015. I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this legislation before the House of Representatives in an expeditious manner, and accordingly, the Committee on Oversight and Government

Reform will forego action on the bill.

The Committee takes this action with our mutual understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 1806 at this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in this or similar legislation. Further, I request your support for the appointment of conferees from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform during any House-Senate conference convened on this or related legislation.

Finally, I would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the bill report filed by the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, as well as in the Congressional Record during floor consideration, to memorialize our understanding.

Sincerely,

Jason Chaffetz,

Chairman.

--

House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,

Washington, DC, May 4, 2015.

Hon. JASON CHAFFETZ,

Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform's jurisdictional interest in H.R. 1806, the ``America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015,'' and your willingness to forego consideration of H.R. 1806 by your committee.

I agree that the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has a valid jurisdictional interest in certain provisions of H.R. 1806, and that the Committee's jurisdiction will not be adversely affected by your decision to forego consideration of H.R. 1806. As you have requested, I will support your request for an appropriate appointment of outside conferees from your Committee in the event of a House-Senate conference on this or similar legislation should such a conference be convened.

Finally, I will include a copy of your letter and this response in the Committee Report and in the Congressional Record during the floor consideration of this bill. Thank you again for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Lamar Smith,

Chairman,

--

House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,

Washington, DC, May 12, 2015.

Hon. FRED UPTON,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding the Committee on Energy and Commerce's jurisdictional interest in H.R. 1806, the ``America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015,'' and your willingness to forego consideration of H.R. 1806 by your committee.

I agree that the Committee on Energy and Commerce has a valid jurisdictional interest in certain provisions of H.R. 1806, and that the Committee's jurisdiction will not be adversely affected by your decision to forego consideration of H.R. 1806. As you have requested, I will support your request for an appropriate appointment of outside conferees from your Committee in the event of a House-Senate conference on this or similar legislation should such a conference be convened.

Finally, I will include a copy of your letter and this response in the Committee Report and in the Congressional Record during the floor consideration of this bill. Thank you again for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Lamar Smith,

Chairman.

--

House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Washington, DC, May 11, 2015.

Hon. LAMAR SMITH,

Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.

DEAR CHAIRMAN SMITH: I write in regard to H.R. 1806, America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015. As you are aware, the bill was referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, but the Committee on Energy and Commerce has a jurisdictional interest in the bill. I wanted to notify you that the Committee on Energy and Commerce will forgo requesting a sequential referral on the bill so that it may proceed expeditiously to the House floor for consideration.

This is done with the understanding that the Committee on Energy and Commerce's jurisdictional interests over this and similar legislation are in no way diminished or altered. In addition, the Committee reserves the right to seek conferees on H.R. 1806 and requests your support when such a request is made.

I would appreciate your response confirming this understanding with respect to H.R. 1806 and ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the Congressional Record during consideration of the bill on the House floor.

Sincerely,

Fred Upton,

Chairman.