5:41 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.

Mr. Chairman, so much of today's debate has been about how harmful the underlying legislation is for our Nation and how it violates every one of the principles of the original COMPETES bill. I am now pleased to be offering a positive way forward in the form of a substitute bill cosponsored by every Democratic member of the committee in addition to the minority leader, Mr. Hoyer.

I spoke earlier about the history of the COMPETES bill and the principles it has embodied since the Rising Above the Gathering Storm report set us on this path 10 years ago. The substitute amendment, which we introduced as H.R. 1898, stays true to one of these principles.

It sets targets that provide for steady and sustained real growth in funding for our research and development agencies. It makes a strong statement that the U.S. Congress sees funding for research across all fields of basic research as a top national priority. It does not include false and detrimental choices and tradeoffs among different fields of science and engineering. It ensures that scientific experts, not politicians, continue to set priorities for funding within and among different fields

of basic research and for individual grants.

The principles embodied in my substitute amendment continue a pact that the Federal Government made with our Nation's great research universities following our victory in World War II and the onset of the space race that led us to the creation of NSF and NASA.

This pact is what has made NSF, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST, and the Department of Energy among the world's greatest and most admired research agencies.

Specifically, my amendment fully funds these agencies at the fiscal year 2016 request level and continues to provide 5 percent annual increases for 5 years. This modest investment is already a compromise, given the immense economic return on our basic research investments. The original Rising Above the Gathering Storm report called for even greater increases.

My amendment also reauthorizes and fully funds ARPA-E, which was created in the 2007 COMPETES Act and has exceeded every expectation for creating innovative new energy technologies and spurring private sector follow-on investment.

In addition, my amendment authorizes and funds important innovation programs at the Department of Commerce, including an innovation voucher pilot program that will help small- and medium-sized manufacturers across the country grow their businesses and create new jobs.

My amendment fully funds the standards work of NIST, in addition to their work to help accelerate growth in U.S. advanced manufacturing. We need to bring those manufacturing jobs back home, and we need to Make It In America. NIST is an essential partner in this effort.

[Time: 17:45]

Finally, my amendment takes seriously the issue of STEM education, including broadening participation in STEM. Our STEM language is not just senses of Congress about how important STEM is and other filler provisions.

Our language directs real important policy changes to help ensure that all U.S. students and researchers have the opportunity to fully develop their talents in STEM and pursue successful STEM careers.

We are facing a demographic imperative. If we do not find a way to turn around the underrepresentation of women and minorities in STEM fields, our Nation will fall well short of the skilled workforce our industries demand. Our substitute puts our money before where our mouth is when it comes to STEM and corrects a glaring deficit in the underlying legislation.

I am proud of my work that I have done on this committee for many years and of the contributions that many of my colleagues made to this substitute amendment. It truly is a COMPETES Reauthorization Act in every way.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to carefully consider the fork in the road before us. If you really want to do right by this great Nation and by our children and our grandchildren, you will vote for the substitute amendment and replace the underlying legislation with a positive path forward.

This amendment will open the doors for innovation and education for our Nation's future. It will not be trade, as many have said, that will cause us to lose these jobs; it will be our companies searching around the world looking for talent and innovation.

Look out for America's future. Vote for this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time

5:41 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.

Mr. Chairman, so much of today's debate has been about how harmful the underlying legislation is for our Nation and how it violates every one of the principles of the original COMPETES bill. I am now pleased to be offering a positive way forward in the form of a substitute bill cosponsored by every Democratic member of the committee in addition to the minority leader, Mr. Hoyer.

I spoke earlier about the history of the COMPETES bill and the principles it has embodied since the Rising Above the Gathering Storm report set us on this path 10 years ago. The substitute amendment, which we introduced as H.R. 1898, stays true to one of these principles.

It sets targets that provide for steady and sustained real growth in funding for our research and development agencies. It makes a strong statement that the U.S. Congress sees funding for research across all fields of basic research as a top national priority. It does not include false and detrimental choices and tradeoffs among different fields of science and engineering. It ensures that scientific experts, not politicians, continue to set priorities for funding within and among different fields

of basic research and for individual grants.

The principles embodied in my substitute amendment continue a pact that the Federal Government made with our Nation's great research universities following our victory in World War II and the onset of the space race that led us to the creation of NSF and NASA.

This pact is what has made NSF, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST, and the Department of Energy among the world's greatest and most admired research agencies.

Specifically, my amendment fully funds these agencies at the fiscal year 2016 request level and continues to provide 5 percent annual increases for 5 years. This modest investment is already a compromise, given the immense economic return on our basic research investments. The original Rising Above the Gathering Storm report called for even greater increases.

My amendment also reauthorizes and fully funds ARPA-E, which was created in the 2007 COMPETES Act and has exceeded every expectation for creating innovative new energy technologies and spurring private sector follow-on investment.

In addition, my amendment authorizes and funds important innovation programs at the Department of Commerce, including an innovation voucher pilot program that will help small- and medium-sized manufacturers across the country grow their businesses and create new jobs.

My amendment fully funds the standards work of NIST, in addition to their work to help accelerate growth in U.S. advanced manufacturing. We need to bring those manufacturing jobs back home, and we need to Make It In America. NIST is an essential partner in this effort.

[Time: 17:45]

Finally, my amendment takes seriously the issue of STEM education, including broadening participation in STEM. Our STEM language is not just senses of Congress about how important STEM is and other filler provisions.

Our language directs real important policy changes to help ensure that all U.S. students and researchers have the opportunity to fully develop their talents in STEM and pursue successful STEM careers.

We are facing a demographic imperative. If we do not find a way to turn around the underrepresentation of women and minorities in STEM fields, our Nation will fall well short of the skilled workforce our industries demand. Our substitute puts our money before where our mouth is when it comes to STEM and corrects a glaring deficit in the underlying legislation.

I am proud of my work that I have done on this committee for many years and of the contributions that many of my colleagues made to this substitute amendment. It truly is a COMPETES Reauthorization Act in every way.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to carefully consider the fork in the road before us. If you really want to do right by this great Nation and by our children and our grandchildren, you will vote for the substitute amendment and replace the underlying legislation with a positive path forward.

This amendment will open the doors for innovation and education for our Nation's future. It will not be trade, as many have said, that will cause us to lose these jobs; it will be our companies searching around the world looking for talent and innovation.

Look out for America's future. Vote for this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time

5:47 PM EDT
Lamar S. Smith, R-TX 21st

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I support a responsible and sustainable path forward for U.S. science, research, and development. We must prioritize the areas of basic research to ensure future U.S. economic competitiveness and spur private sector innovation.

This amendment ignores the caps set by the Budget Control Act, which the ranking member herself supported, and ignores the tough choices that must be made to protect the American taxpayer and future generations from more debt. It is irresponsible not to adhere to the Budget Control Act, which was signed into law by President Obama.

The Budget Control Act was a bipartisan agreement that 95 Democrats voted for, including the ranking member. Now, she wants to ignore that particular law. Although many Members would like to see the Budget Control Act replaced, it is the law of the land, and we should abide by it.

Of course, it is easy just to propose more spending, knowing it will sound good, even if it is irresponsible and against the law. In fiscal year 2016 alone, this amendment would increase spending by $600 million over the current level and the underlying bill. The amendment increases spending on later-stage research and technology, best done by the private sector.

Since last Congress, we have worked hard to reach an agreement with the minority on numerous policy issues, and we have accepted many of their provisions and ideas to make this bill stronger.

For example, we strengthened STEM provisions related to a new advisory panel and coordinating office. We also included language in support of NIST that passed the House floor on a bipartisan vote last year.

Also, in title III of the bill are three pieces of bipartisan legislation that passed the Science Committee by voice vote in March. Two of those three pieces of legislation were sponsored by Democrats.

I urge my colleagues to support a balanced approach of fiscal responsibility and targeted investments in priority science and basic research and vote ``no'' on the Democratic substitute. The Democratic substitute ignores the Budget Control Act and does not advance good science in America.

I reserve the balance of my time.

5:47 PM EDT
Lamar S. Smith, R-TX 21st

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I support a responsible and sustainable path forward for U.S. science, research, and development. We must prioritize the areas of basic research to ensure future U.S. economic competitiveness and spur private sector innovation.

This amendment ignores the caps set by the Budget Control Act, which the ranking member herself supported, and ignores the tough choices that must be made to protect the American taxpayer and future generations from more debt. It is irresponsible not to adhere to the Budget Control Act, which was signed into law by President Obama.

The Budget Control Act was a bipartisan agreement that 95 Democrats voted for, including the ranking member. Now, she wants to ignore that particular law. Although many Members would like to see the Budget Control Act replaced, it is the law of the land, and we should abide by it.

Of course, it is easy just to propose more spending, knowing it will sound good, even if it is irresponsible and against the law. In fiscal year 2016 alone, this amendment would increase spending by $600 million over the current level and the underlying bill. The amendment increases spending on later-stage research and technology, best done by the private sector.

Since last Congress, we have worked hard to reach an agreement with the minority on numerous policy issues, and we have accepted many of their provisions and ideas to make this bill stronger.

For example, we strengthened STEM provisions related to a new advisory panel and coordinating office. We also included language in support of NIST that passed the House floor on a bipartisan vote last year.

Also, in title III of the bill are three pieces of bipartisan legislation that passed the Science Committee by voice vote in March. Two of those three pieces of legislation were sponsored by Democrats.

I urge my colleagues to support a balanced approach of fiscal responsibility and targeted investments in priority science and basic research and vote ``no'' on the Democratic substitute. The Democratic substitute ignores the Budget Control Act and does not advance good science in America.

I reserve the balance of my time.

5:47 PM EDT
Lamar S. Smith, R-TX 21st

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I support a responsible and sustainable path forward for U.S. science, research, and development. We must prioritize the areas of basic research to ensure future U.S. economic competitiveness and spur private sector innovation.

This amendment ignores the caps set by the Budget Control Act, which the ranking member herself supported, and ignores the tough choices that must be made to protect the American taxpayer and future generations from more debt. It is irresponsible not to adhere to the Budget Control Act, which was signed into law by President Obama.

The Budget Control Act was a bipartisan agreement that 95 Democrats voted for, including the ranking member. Now, she wants to ignore that particular law. Although many Members would like to see the Budget Control Act replaced, it is the law of the land, and we should abide by it.

Of course, it is easy just to propose more spending, knowing it will sound good, even if it is irresponsible and against the law. In fiscal year 2016 alone, this amendment would increase spending by $600 million over the current level and the underlying bill. The amendment increases spending on later-stage research and technology, best done by the private sector.

Since last Congress, we have worked hard to reach an agreement with the minority on numerous policy issues, and we have accepted many of their provisions and ideas to make this bill stronger.

For example, we strengthened STEM provisions related to a new advisory panel and coordinating office. We also included language in support of NIST that passed the House floor on a bipartisan vote last year.

Also, in title III of the bill are three pieces of bipartisan legislation that passed the Science Committee by voice vote in March. Two of those three pieces of legislation were sponsored by Democrats.

I urge my colleagues to support a balanced approach of fiscal responsibility and targeted investments in priority science and basic research and vote ``no'' on the Democratic substitute. The Democratic substitute ignores the Budget Control Act and does not advance good science in America.

I reserve the balance of my time.

5:49 PM EDT
Daniel Lipinski, D-IL 3rd

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank Ms. Johnson for yielding.

I am proud to rise in support of Ms. Johnson's amendment in the nature of a substitute, and I am also proud to cosponsor H.R. 1898, which contains the same language, because this alternative is much more in keeping with the principles of the original America COMPETES Act.

Mr. Chairman, in 2007, I served on the conference committee that worked out the House-Senate compromise on the original COMPETES bill. In 2010, I wrote the NSF title on the reauthorization. These are two of my proudest moments in Congress because those were bipartisan bills that set us on a path to continue leading the world in scientific research and innovation for the next generation.

Sadly, in recent years, we have let that progress stall. Make no mistake, other nations are continuing to invest and are continuing to innovate. If we don't come together to send a strong message and provide strong support for scientific research, America will no longer be able to compete.

The COMPETES bill is an investment bill. I understand the threat of our enormous Federal debt; but, without the types of investments that are made in the COMPETES bill, we will not promote the economic growth that we need to end our deficits and pay down our debt.

Ranking Member Johnson's alternative makes those investments. Unlike the base bill, it does not make drastic cuts to Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, which promotes and funds research and development of advanced energy technologies.

It does not make drastic cuts to the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy that invests in high-risk, high-value research and development in the fields of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. It doesn't cut the geosciences or make a more than 50 percent cut to research in the social, behavioral, and economic sciences.

Some might think that last one is warranted; but, in the Science Committee, we are constantly hearing from witnesses about how social science is vital to the work going on in other fields. Members of Congress have frequently relied on spectrum auctions, developed by NSF social science research, to raise billions of dollars.

Social science is perhaps the most critical component to preventing cyber crimes. Considering that the majority of all cyber breaches occur because of social factors, like using easy-to-guess passwords or clicking on a link in a phishing attack, we should want to increase funding in these areas.

Mr. Chairman, Ms. Johnson's amendment provides robust support in all of these areas. I agree that the chairman's bill has gotten better and things have been added to the bill which have made it a better bill, but still, I think there is no question that Ms. Johnson's

substitute is a much better bill for making the types of investments we need in scientific research right now if we want to make sure that America still competes. This is critical to the future of our country; this is critical to innovation.

I urge my colleagues to support it.

5:49 PM EDT
Daniel Lipinski, D-IL 3rd

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank Ms. Johnson for yielding.

I am proud to rise in support of Ms. Johnson's amendment in the nature of a substitute, and I am also proud to cosponsor H.R. 1898, which contains the same language, because this alternative is much more in keeping with the principles of the original America COMPETES Act.

Mr. Chairman, in 2007, I served on the conference committee that worked out the House-Senate compromise on the original COMPETES bill. In 2010, I wrote the NSF title on the reauthorization. These are two of my proudest moments in Congress because those were bipartisan bills that set us on a path to continue leading the world in scientific research and innovation for the next generation.

Sadly, in recent years, we have let that progress stall. Make no mistake, other nations are continuing to invest and are continuing to innovate. If we don't come together to send a strong message and provide strong support for scientific research, America will no longer be able to compete.

The COMPETES bill is an investment bill. I understand the threat of our enormous Federal debt; but, without the types of investments that are made in the COMPETES bill, we will not promote the economic growth that we need to end our deficits and pay down our debt.

Ranking Member Johnson's alternative makes those investments. Unlike the base bill, it does not make drastic cuts to Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, which promotes and funds research and development of advanced energy technologies.

It does not make drastic cuts to the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy that invests in high-risk, high-value research and development in the fields of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. It doesn't cut the geosciences or make a more than 50 percent cut to research in the social, behavioral, and economic sciences.

Some might think that last one is warranted; but, in the Science Committee, we are constantly hearing from witnesses about how social science is vital to the work going on in other fields. Members of Congress have frequently relied on spectrum auctions, developed by NSF social science research, to raise billions of dollars.

Social science is perhaps the most critical component to preventing cyber crimes. Considering that the majority of all cyber breaches occur because of social factors, like using easy-to-guess passwords or clicking on a link in a phishing attack, we should want to increase funding in these areas.

Mr. Chairman, Ms. Johnson's amendment provides robust support in all of these areas. I agree that the chairman's bill has gotten better and things have been added to the bill which have made it a better bill, but still, I think there is no question that Ms. Johnson's

substitute is a much better bill for making the types of investments we need in scientific research right now if we want to make sure that America still competes. This is critical to the future of our country; this is critical to innovation.

I urge my colleagues to support it.

5:53 PM EDT
Brian Babin, R-TX 36th

Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.

The gentlewoman's amendment makes everything a priority so that nothing really is. This amendment rubberstamps the administration's budget request, which fails to make choices, spreading a little bit of research funding around to try to please everyone.

Compared to the gentlewoman's proposal, H.R. 1806 funds 329 more new grants in biology next year, 398 more new grants in computer science, 457 more new grants in engineering, and 955 more new grants in math and the physical sciences.

These are research grants that are going to universities and research institutions across the country, fueling innovation and driving economic competitiveness in the United States.

5:53 PM EDT
Brian Babin, R-TX 36th

Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.

The gentlewoman's amendment makes everything a priority so that nothing really is. This amendment rubberstamps the administration's budget request, which fails to make choices, spreading a little bit of research funding around to try to please everyone.

Compared to the gentlewoman's proposal, H.R. 1806 funds 329 more new grants in biology next year, 398 more new grants in computer science, 457 more new grants in engineering, and 955 more new grants in math and the physical sciences.

These are research grants that are going to universities and research institutions across the country, fueling innovation and driving economic competitiveness in the United States.

5:54 PM EDT
Suzanne Bonamici, D-OR 1st

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I rise today in support of the substitute amendment to H.R. 1806 and focus on one issue. The underlying bill would set a harmful new precedent by authorizing funding at the directorate level.

Currently, funding levels for the National Science Foundation for each directorate are based on strategic priorities and science-based recommendations from the National Science Board. This is how it should be and how it remains under the substitute amendment.

By setting authorization levels according to directorate, this bill would limit the flexibility NSF needs to set strategic priorities and adapt and capitalize on unanticipated discoveries.

I share the concerns of many experts that the underlying bill would reduce authorized funding levels for specific directorates: the Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences and the Directorate for Geosciences.

Some of this funding has been used, for example, for Oregon State University to conduct research on ocean acidification. It has also been used critically to support the work in Oregon to develop our understanding of the risks posed by a Cascadia subduction zone earthquake. Other examples are around the country.

In summary, the underlying bill diminishes the ability of the National Science Foundation to make strategic science-based decisions. [Page: H3485]

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the substitute amendment.

5:54 PM EDT
Suzanne Bonamici, D-OR 1st

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I rise today in support of the substitute amendment to H.R. 1806 and focus on one issue. The underlying bill would set a harmful new precedent by authorizing funding at the directorate level.

Currently, funding levels for the National Science Foundation for each directorate are based on strategic priorities and science-based recommendations from the National Science Board. This is how it should be and how it remains under the substitute amendment.

By setting authorization levels according to directorate, this bill would limit the flexibility NSF needs to set strategic priorities and adapt and capitalize on unanticipated discoveries.

I share the concerns of many experts that the underlying bill would reduce authorized funding levels for specific directorates: the Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences and the Directorate for Geosciences.

Some of this funding has been used, for example, for Oregon State University to conduct research on ocean acidification. It has also been used critically to support the work in Oregon to develop our understanding of the risks posed by a Cascadia subduction zone earthquake. Other examples are around the country.

In summary, the underlying bill diminishes the ability of the National Science Foundation to make strategic science-based decisions. [Page: H3485]

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the substitute amendment.

5:56 PM EDT
Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-TX 30th

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I simply will close by saying, as we have been on this floor, we continue to get emails and letters from universities and scientists around this Nation.

I am not presenting this substitute to be funny; I am presenting this substitute to take us to the professional level that the research brought us when we first had America COMPETES. It is not a picking and choosing; it is a professional approach to funding scientific projects.

If we mean to look out for the future of the Nation, as we say we are, this is the legislation that will do it.

I urge everyone to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

5:56 PM EDT
Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-TX 30th

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I simply will close by saying, as we have been on this floor, we continue to get emails and letters from universities and scientists around this Nation.

I am not presenting this substitute to be funny; I am presenting this substitute to take us to the professional level that the research brought us when we first had America COMPETES. It is not a picking and choosing; it is a professional approach to funding scientific projects.

If we mean to look out for the future of the Nation, as we say we are, this is the legislation that will do it.

I urge everyone to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

5:57 PM EDT
Lamar S. Smith, R-TX 21st

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman's amendment ignores the law of the land. She and more than 90 other Democrats supported the Budget Control Act, which was signed into law by the President. This amendment ignores those budget caps.

I support a responsible and sustainable path forward for U.S. science, research, and development; but it is neither responsible, nor sustainable, to spend more and more taxpayer dollars and increase the debt that future generations will inherit. We must prioritize the areas of basic research to ensure future economic competitiveness and spur private sector innovation.

Since the last Congress, we have worked hard to reach an agreement with the minority on numerous policy issues, but we have been clear since the beginning that increases in spending need to have reasonable offsets. This amendment fails to include any offsets and openly ignores the Budget Control Act.

I urge my colleagues to support a balanced approach of fiscal responsibility and targeted investments in priority, science, and basic research. Vote ``no'' on the amendment and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.