tv U.S. House Legislative Business CSPAN May 20, 2015 12:00pm-6:31pm EDT
bill, the proposed funding level quote, undermines key investments in science, technology, and innovation. votes expected throughout the afternoon. live to the house floor here on c-span. the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered today by our guest chaplain, mr. michael green from the layman avenue church of christ in bowling green, kentucky. the chaplain: dear god, our
creators, from whom we receive our inalienable right. we give you thank this day for the blessings you have poured out on this great land this great country, this great people. we play freeze blessings will continue through your grace. we thank you for the opportunity to serve, an we pray for those assembled here today as they deliberate in this august body. we pray your guiding hand be upon them. bless them with wisdom bless them with courage to do the right as you have revealed the right and help them to remember that what is being done in this place is not just an exercise in debate but will affect millions of people. and help us finally to preserve our heritage of freedom for future generations. this we pray on this day of our lord and in his name, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1
the journal stands approve the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentlelady from new hampshire, ms. kuster. ms. kuster: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: without objection the gentleman from kentucky, mr. guthrie is recognized for one minute. mr. guthrie: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to welcome mr. mike greene to washington. mike is serving today as guest chaplain in the u.s. house of representatives. speaking just moments ago, he prayed for all of us serving this great institution and the work we do each and every day. i've been fortunate to know mike as my minister in bowling green kentucky, and have always appreciated his prayers. throughout his 44 years as a minister, he's served churches of christ in kentucky, tennessee and georgia. he also serves on the board of
direct yoffers the foundation christian academy in bowling green. i always enjoy having a little bit of kentucky here in washington. today i'm proud to welcome you, mike, to the u.s. capitol. thank you for your prayers and thank you for taking time to be with us in the capitol today. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair will entertain up to 15 further requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. boehner: next week marks the one-year -- the speaker: next week marks one year since general shin sec key resigned as leader of the veterans affairs department. at the time, the president promised reform. he said, and i quote the number one priority is making sure the
problems get fixed. but instead, at the v.a., we're seeing more of the same. last week congress gave the v.a. secretary new authority to fire employees. but while some 110 v.a. facilities kept secret lists to hide wait times gist one person has been fired. one. what the hell happened to the rest of them? some got to retire with their benefits, some got transfers, some got paid leave, some got a slap on the wrist. all of them went on collecting checks from the taxpayers. if only the veterans administration did half as good a job of taking care of the bureaucrats as they do our veterans, we'd be in a lot better shape. in fact, congress also gai the v.a. more than $16 billion to improve care and to shorten waiting times. and yet the number of patients facing long waits is about the
same. the number of patients waiting more than 90 days is is -- more than 90 days has doubled. on this day, the v.a. can't even build a hospital. just about every project ends up years behind schedule and hundreds of millions, if not billions, over cost. and just last week, the public learned that the v.a. is spending $6 billion a year illegally. an internal report exposed examples of overspending on conferences, improper gifts, inappropriate purchases and promotional items. again, if only v.a. bureaucrats did as good a job of taking care of our veterans as they do themselves. the author of the report at the v.a. and i quote doors are swung wide open for fraud waste, and abuse and these actions may potentially result in serious harm or death to
america's veterans. that's our own expert saying this. this isn't the run of the mill incompetence. it's arrogance and it's arrogance that allow ours veterans to be lied to, ignored, and frankly left to die. my colleagues, it's almost memorial day. that's when we slow down and reflect on the debt of gratitude that we owe to our heroes. and i commend chairman miller and all of the members of the veterans affairs committee for striving every day to fulfill this obligation. congress will continue to pass legislation to hold the v.a. accountable, but only the administration can change the culture from within. the president owes the american people a real, long-term plan to fix the v.a. not a promise, not a pledge not rearranging the chairs on a deck. a real plan to clean up this mess.
and i'll keep coming back to this podium until the administration produces such a plan. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection ordered. mr. cicilline: i rise today to con garage late the city of new port, rhode island, in my district, for hosting this month's ocean ration, the premiere sailing race around the world. -- premier sailing race around the world. it brought thousands of visitors to our island as well as millions of dollars of economic activity that supported the tourism industry and our small business community. more important, the success of event allowed us the opportunity to tell our story about great things happening in rhode island today. i want to thank everyone who helped make the nation ose only stopover for this race a
success. including the department of environmental management, the new port chamber of commerce, members of the general assembly governor ramundo and i want to acknowledge senator sheldon whitehouse for bringing this to rhode island and his ongoing efforts to enhance our state's position in the maritime industry. congratulations to everyone who made this such a success. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker i rise today to recognize staff sergeant robert h. deeths, who was awarded the medal of honor for his courageous actions in world war ii. sergeant dietz hailed from the 19th congressional district. in march 1945, sernlt dietz led his squad on an attack of a
heavily fortified german position. under heavy machine gunfire he, advanced forward providing a path for the men of his squad and platoon this selfless act enabled the success of this attack but in the process, serblingt dietz lost his life. with strong local support, we submitted a bill to rename the post office in kingston for sergeant dietz. yesterday, that bill passed in the oversight and government reform committee. i thank chairman chaffetz his committee and the entire new york delegation for their strong support and look forward to its passage in the full house soon. mr. speaker as we approach memorial day weekend, we pause to remember sergeant dietz and all those men and women who lost their lives in defense of our free toms. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute.
mrs. wilson: mr. speaker, -- >> mr. speaker, today i along with many of my colleagues wear red to pressure nigerian president elect into taking aggressive action against boko haram. mrs. wilson: next week as nigeria welcomes a new president, we here in congress want to put a spotlight on the immense threat boko haram poses to nigh jeer yao's democracy and freedom. mr. speaker, we want president elect to though we will hold him accountable just as we held his predecessor accountable. we urge this new administration to bring with it a swift and lasting change in attitude on this issue. we hope the new president will have a sense of urgency at
finding the schoolgirls and defeating boko haram. mr. speaker, we expect the new president to find the girls, whether they have been married off against their will or not, are alive or in a mass grave, wherever they are, we want to know. until they are found we will continue to tweet tweet tweet, ht bringbackourgirls, tweet, tweets, tweet #join representativewilson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from tennessee seek recognition? the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs. blackburn: thank you mr. speaker. i rise today to talk about the 21st century cures act this is legislation that we at the energy and commerce committee are working on in a bipartisan basis. and we look forward to moving it to the house floor and seeing
this passed and signed into law. why are we doing it? because we want to put the focus on tours that will enable -- cures that will enable people to live a better life. let's take just one disease. alzheimer's. five million people have alzheimer's this ecost to the nation is $215 billion a year. when you look out several decades to 2050, the cost is estimated to be $1 trillion a year by one disease. yes, we need to focus on finding cures. and there are other disorders and diseases that need that attention. take autism diabetes a.l.s., cancer, the list moves on. it is time for us to encourage and support young scientists, put the focus on our most challenging health conditions and we want the regulatory
agencies to be there to encourage. this is our effort, and i encourage support for 21st century cures. i yield back. the chair: the time of the gentlewoman has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new hampshire seek recognition? the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. kuster: today i rise to underscore the importance of increasing access to higher education, including work force development programs that help our students gain the high tech skills they need to succeed in our 21st century economy. in new hampshire, we are blessed to have some of the best community colleges in the country and i am proud to have visited every single community college in my district. today i would like to recognize one institution, the new hampshire technical institute, the community college in our capital of concord which was
just ranked number one in the country for val added by the brookings institute that means that nhti students are peting -- meeting and surpassing expected outcomes after graduation and many are going on to extremely successful careers. every student should have access to this type of opportunity and i'm pushing for a number of initiatives that will help business partners join with community colleges to provide specific job training. let's all join together to make sure that students across the country can access the kind of value added programs offered at nhti and together we can move forward so that every american can realize the american dream. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlewoman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. johnson: thank you,
mr. speaker. one of my top priorities is standing up for our service men and women. that's why i'm proud to reintroduce the help veterans save for health care act because right now the i.r.s. makes a veteran choose between receiving v.a. care, you know, or continuing to fund their health savings account. that's kind of wrong. my bill fixes that. in addition to this bill today congress will recognize america's fighter aces with its highest honor the congressional gold medal. last year congress passed this resolution honoring these patriots who are simply the best of the best. we are the land of the free because all our troops and veterans who have put their lives on the line for us. and i salute them today as we remember their sacrifices on this memorial day. yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? mr. cohen: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minutes. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank this occasion to thank david letterman for 33 years of late night television and giving his genius to america. i want to thank him on behalf of my friend, warren, for being the best friend music ever had and helping so many other musicians play for america. for dave giving andy kauffman the opportunity to give his zany sense of humor to america and so many other comedians. dave was in the ed sullivan theater but he should have been in the steve allen theater, because weighs more like steve allen. the man on the street interview of steve allen was like stupid pet tricks. david letterman was a genius. tonight i'll be watching his last show. we all will.
6,028. hope we all watch it. dave, don't stay away. come back. we thank you for all you have given us. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? excuse me, montana. mr. daines: unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. today i rise in honor of montana veterans and all men and women who have fallen in defense of our great nation. i would like to recognize one in particular, private first class, nichlas cook. . mr. zinke: he bravely snow and iced himself to save his fellow paratroopers by exposing his position providesing suppressive fire. his valor earned him the silver star. no veteran should ever be forgotten. today i would like to also recognize the following montana veterans for their service to our nation. james digins carl norberg, kenneth and christopher bogner
charles, michael james and gary jacobson benjamin, nichlas cook willard james and john hands, robert, dennis edward kinney. god bless the united states and god bless those troops. mr. speaker i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from montana yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? ms. schakowsky: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. schakowsky: i rise to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the head start program. head start is near and dear to my heart. i began my career as a head start teacher in the chicago public schools. i have never forgotten how the program made a monumental difference for its students. and this congress should not forget those kids, either. since its inception, head start has served 32 million children in all 50 states, the district
of columbia puerto rico, and the u.s. territories. last year in my home state of illinois, there were 130 early head starts and head start providers, providing quality teachers. and there is an economic impact. head start accounted for more than 7,950 jobs in illinois last year. yet sequestration cuts have done serious damage to the programs in illinois and around the nation. and my state alone more than 16.5 million in funding has been cut. 1,900 children went unserved. and 549 jobs were lost. certainly none of us were elected to keep young children in need from getting an education. we should celebrate the 50th anniversary by fully funding head start and eliminating the sequester because every child in our country deserves a quality education and a good start. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlewoman has expired. for what purpose does the
gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, this week an internal report from the department of veterans affairs revealed that the department annually spends $6 billion on illegal contracts and out-of-control spending. this fraud is unacceptable. an insult to the men and women who risked their lives in service to our country. unfortunately this lack of accountability at the department of veterans affairs is all too common under president obama's failed leadership. our veterans deserve the best and i will continue working to give our veterans the treatment they have earned as promoted by veterans' affairs chairman jeff miller of florida. congress has worked to promote change at the v.a. for example this week we pad the ensuring -- passed the ensures v.a. accountability act. this bipartisan effort clearly demonstrates meaningful reforms for our veterans and military families. i hope president obama can live up to his commitment to end
delays and denial of services to our veterans. in conclusion, god bless our troops and may the president by his actions never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> ask for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. miss sanchez: -- ms. sanchez: this week marks the 50th year anniversary of the head start program. a momentous achievement in our nation's fight to break the cycle of poverty and open the windows of opportunity for low-income families and children. now i don't want to date myself actually, but i was in the first class of head start. and today i bring with me my original certificate of completion from that program.
i am proud to say that if it were not for head start i wouldn't be here today. you see, as the daughter of poor immigrants from mexico, not many people would think i would graduate from high school let alone college or get my m.b.a. and eventually make my way to the house of representatives. head start has served over 32 million children. more importantly, it has helped families know how to navigate the school system. my hats are off to the teachers to the community volunteers to the health care coordinators and to so many who helped to implement head start programs in their communities. your work is transforming our nation. it is giving that head start to our children because they are the future of this nation. so i say today, happy birthday head start. and mr. speaker, i yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlewoman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i rise today in remembrance of third district constituent. mr. smith: he was killed a helicopter crash last week while providing humanitarian aid in nepal. he made the ultimate sacrifice while trying to assist victims no one else could reach. his service reflects the goodness of america. accepting the call to help those who need it most. when i spoke with the captain's mother yesterday, she told me how her son called to wish her a happy mother's day just days before the crash. his attention to loved ones is a reflection of his life of service and devoting himself to the care of others. please join me in praying for the captain's mother, father, wife, daughter, unborn child, and all others who lost loved ones in this terrible tragedy.
as memorial day approaches, we must make it our priority to honor and remember our military heroes and captain lucas is certainly one of our heroes. thank you mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nebraska yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. nolan: mr. speaker members of the house as congressman schakowsky and congressman sanchez just point the out their involvement in head start, i want -- i directed a 19-unit head start program up in north central minnesota in my youth. i'm proud to join them in celebrating this 50th anniversary that served over 32 million children. because i was able to see first hand how this impacted
children's lives and what a testimonial to see one of the first participants go on to become a member of the united states congress and running for the united states senate. clearly, head start is so critical to our national commitment to every child regardless of their circumstances. at birth, to have an opportunity to succeed in life developing that wonderful spark for learning that sets kids up for success. so once again, hats off to the educators, to the directors, to the faculty, to the parents, all those who have made this program such a wonderful great success for children all across america. thank you mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman from minnesota has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i rise to
recognize may as national foster care month. today i would like to applaud the thousands of families who opened their homes to foster children. it takes a special kind of caregiver to foster a child. someone who can drop everything on a moment's notice and without hesitation bring a child into their home. in pennsylvania alone, there are 15,000 children in foster care, mr. rothfus: that means we have thousands amazing families with hearts big enough to provide love and care for children who need a place to call home. foster children become an irreplaceable part of the family. the most telling statistic is that in pennsylvania 65% of families end up adopting their foster children. we need families willing to open their hearts and homes unconditionally to children who have been abused and removed from their homes. this is why so many dedicated foster families are able to provide. during national foster care month, i would like to celebrate the foster children who overcome great obstacles and recognize
the dedicated foster families who support them. i thank the speaker. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mrs. lawrence: i stand here to lech nies may as the national foster care month. more than 40,000 of our nation's youth are currently living in a child welfare system. more than 23,000 youth age out of the foster care system when they turn 18, putting them at risk for homelessness, criminal exposure, and mental illness. these statistics paint a grim picture, but today i stand here to recognize a young woman who aged out of the foster care system, camille times, a success sorry. she spent five years in michigan
foster care system. her experience has fostered her now as a young woman as a tireless advocate for foster care and resources that our children need. she has been given awards and recognized for her amazing leadership such as the foster care outstanding young leaders award. she is now creating her own consulting firm to address those needs. she is a graduate of the university of michigan. ladies and gentlemen, i ask my colleagues to please continue to understand the importance of recognizing and funding our foster care program. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman michigan yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to recognize and celebrate may as national foster care month. and welcome many of the foster
care youth who are visiting the house of representatives today. this year's theme is get to know the many cases of foster care. the goal of this special month is to celebrate the experience of more than 400,000 youth in the child welfare system and raise awareness about their needs. mr. speaker, the foster care system has and always will hold a special place in my heart. when i was 11 years old my family welcome a foster care child bob, into our home. he's taught me so much and will be my brother for life. today i have the honor of being shadow for the day by nelly of newman, georgia. nella has been in foster care with eight years with her first foster care setting start when she was 10 years ole. in just these few hours, she has impressed pea with her positive -- me with her positive attitude. i know for certain this young lady has a very bright future
ahead like so many other young youth who will -- we will see through the halls of congress today. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? . without objection the gentlewoman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i join my colleagues today in celebration of 63 foster youth and 63 bipartisan members of congress who are participating in the fourth annual congressional caucus on foster youth shadow day experience. the goal of the event is to give foster youth an opportunity to share their unique experience with members of congress as well as gain intimate insight into the legislative process. far too often we legislate from a glass tower, far removed from the people and places that our laws effect. shadow day was created to address this very issue
empowering foster youth from across the couldn't are toy come to our nation's capitol and their their stories why giving members of congress the opportunity to learn from the very young people whose lives we genuinely want to improve. ms. bass: shadowing me today is brianna a beautiful young woman from my hometown of los angeles. she became an open case at the department of child and family services at the age of 15 due to abuse by her father. multiple placements, the tpwhrect and instability defined her foster care experience. as she pursues her bachelor's degree in accounting in new orleans, she strives to voice the real concerns of foster youth and give strength to her foster peers by moving toward change. brianna's ultimate goal is to become a foster care advocate, encouraging other youth like her to stand up for themselves and the child welfare system. i look forward to hearing more about brianna's experience and listening to her legislative
recommendations. thank you for your resiliency and your commitment to reforming the child welfare system. in honor of brianna and the 62 other foster youth here's on the hill i invite my colleagues to join us in recognizing this day. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from pennsylvania seek recognition? -- the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise to recognize may as foster care month. there was an estimated 425,000 children in foster care. 65% of foster care children experience seven school changes while in care. 62% become homeless within the first month of emancipation my foster shadow today is demara from pennsylvania. we are exchanging some great
ideas about foster care. all children deserve a safe loving, and permanent home. please become a foster parent. foster care parent. my wife and i are foster care parents and associated with working with children throughout my life. we have provide so much for them but equally important they have provided so much for us. mr. marino: with that, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ashford: i rise to applaud several nebraska schools for their work on the environment. two omaha schools the heritage bay elementary school and the focus school, along with the lincoln school district, have been named green ribbon schools. they have been honored fir their promising efforts to reduce neg
-- to reduce negative environmental impact, promote better health and cut utility costs. as secretary duncan has noted, these schools are, quote, an inspiration and deserve the spotlight for embodying the strong examples of innovative learning and civic engagement. it's clear that the honorees are powerful examples of the ways in which schools can help students cut school costs prorkvide healthy learning environments and prepare for the real world ahead. i also want to take this opportunity to honor my good and late friend senator ron rakes from ash lyn, nebraska who with me -- ashlyn, nebraska, who with me developed legislation for this. he is sorely missed. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new hampshire seek recognition? without objection, so ordered.
mr. guinta: i rise today to speak on a cause near and dear to my heart fixing our mental health system. as some of you may know, i have a family member with a mental illness. this allowed me to see firsthand how our system fails those with a mental illness. as part of my efforts to bring about change to new hampshire's mental health system, i join my colleague, represent -- i joined my colleague, representative kuster, last week, in hosting a summit with local advocates, health care providers and lawmakers. these efforts are essential in the fight to reform our mental health system. it is with their feedback and opinion that myself, representative kuster and our colleagues in congress can the vise bipartisan solutions to fix this issue. together we can bring about real bipartisan chidge for individuals and families affected by mental illness. we need to change this to a patient-centered metrics driven
environment to ensure that gra mitt staters and patients and their families are provided with the necessary care, support, and resources they deserve. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from nevada seek recognition? ms. titus: unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. titus: our nation's success is built on the foundation of diversity. this is particularly evident in my district home to the largestation american and pacific islander population in nevada. chinatown plaza on spring mountain road is home to one of the country's most popular chinese knewier's celebrations. last thriving filipino district
along maryland parkway and dozens of thai, japanese korea -- korean, and other shops and festivals that enrich our society and strengthen our economy. as we celebrate aapi heritage month let us act noming the value immigrants bring to our lives and recognize how much we all stand to fweap from enacting comprehensive immigration reform that honor ours country's legacy as the land of opportunity. we don't simply benefit from the myriad contributions of immigrants, we thrive and flourish because of them. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? without objection, so ordered. >> mr. speaker today we present the congressional gold medal, the highest civilian honor bestowed by congress to recognize the distinguished
service of the american fighter aces. mr. newhouse: one of those being honor is colonel arthur jeffries, credited with shooting down 14 enemy aircraft in world war ii. colonel jeffrey flew missions in d-day. in 1944 he was awarded the silver star for his courage, combat skills and gallant leadership while thwarting an enemy mission. colonel jeffrey ended his tour as commander of the 434th fighter squadron. his service was recognized at the time with the distinguished flying cross with one oak leaf cluster, and the air medal with 16 oak leaf clusters. colonel jeffrey passed away this april in yakima washington, at the age of 95, regrettably before this honor was bestowed. please join me in honoring the memory of colonel jeffrey, a remarkable american, for his
outstanding service defending our nation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. clyburn: this week marks the 509 anniversary of head start, a wonderful success story that empowered 32 million children in america. unfortunately, the future of head start today expands a -- stands in grave peril due to misplaced priorities of the republican budget which cuts $759 billion from nondefense discretionary funds and will result in 35,000 fewer children participating in head start. house democrats want to embrace the future by investing in early childhood education and enacting universal prekindergarten. democrats strongly support president obama's initiative to
fully fund head start and expand the head start child care participation partnerships. research shows that high quality early education is a great investment in a child's life and our nation's future. mr. speaker, our children are our future. as head starters across the country plant rose bushes this week to commemorate president johnson's rose garden launching of head start this congress must reject the misplaced priorities of the republican budget and embrace a brighter future for our children. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i request permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i'm here today to pay tribute to our veterans
and to the men and women of our armed forces who wake up every day, put on our nation's uniform and don't know if they're going to be home that evening safely with their families. last weekend volunteers came together in port connor texas for the ninth annual warriors weekend. mr. farenthold: this weekend brings together military members who have been wounded in combat in in the global war on terror, not just those wounded physically but those with invisible scars like ptsd and depression. many of these current and former military members are still in recovery and physical rehabilitation but the weekend event gives them a chance to build a support network and have a great time enjoying the texas outdoors. warriors weekend was created in part by veterans who served in vietnam and they know all too well how it felt to return home from war and be looked down on. they wanted to make sure every member of the military is welcomed home properly and they
knew that our wounded veterans often times have needs that are overlooked. i urge you in supporting the wounded -- the warriors weekend again next year. i yield back the remainer of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs. maloney: the house voted yesterday to approve a two-month extension of the highway trust fund. i'm pleased we were able to pass a short-term fix, but this -- it's time to stop kicking the can down the road. i urge my colleagues to use the next 60 days to come up with a long-term plan to invest in our nation's transportation infrastructure, a plan that will create jobs, strengthen american competitiveness and lay the ground work for future economic growth. i ask the joint economic staff to analyze the cost of u.s. underinvestment in
infrastructure and this map tells an important part of the story. across the country, one in four bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. that's scary and it's a matter of public safety. americans are taking tens of millions of trips every day other bridges that are in need of repair. as you can see on the pap in some states, over one third of the bridges are failing. here in the nation's capital 70% of our bridges are failing. we should fix our crumbling infrastructure as a matter of public safety and as a matter of national pride. to see how your state is doing you can down load the map and the raw data behind it from the j.e.c. website, jec.senate.gov. and i urge my colleagues to support infrastructure. it's time to move beyond a two-month extension and instead work on a long-term solution to this critical and important and economic development challenge. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the
time of the gentlewoman has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? the gentlewoman is recognized to conclude the one-minute speeches. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you so much mr. speaker. as we celebrate national foster care month, first recognized by president ronald reagan in 1988 i'd like to thank the dedicated foster families, social workers and service providers for their commitment to help children. may is also a time to shed light on the plight of nearly 400,000 children and youth who are currently in our country's foster care system and we call for safe and nurturing environments for these vulnerable members of our society. in an effort to give qualifies adoptive and foster parents an opportunity to make a lasting difference in the lives of these children, i will be introducing bipartisan, bicameral legislation that would help ensure that more children have the opportunity to be raised in
a loving and supportive home that they can call their own. the every child deserves a family act would ensure that prejudice played no part in adoption and foster care placement. a parent's ability to care for a child should not be determined by any parent's sexual orientation or gender identity but by their love. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlewoman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? . >> by the committee on rules i all up the house resolution. the speaker pro tempore: house number 34, house resolution 273. resolved that at any time after the doomings of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18 declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill h.r. 2263, to facilitate a progrowth environment for the developing
commercial space industry by encouraging private sector investment and creating more stable and regulatory conditions and for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on science, space, and technology, or their respective designees. after general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on science, space, and technology now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 114-17. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read all points of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are
waived. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part a of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report. shall be considered as read. shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments and may have been adopted. any member may demand a separate vote in the house on any amendment adopted in the committee of the whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature f a substitute made -- of a substitute made in order. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and aleds thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit or without instructions. section 2 upon adoption of this resolution, it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill h.r. 880, to amend the internal revenue code of 198 to simplify and make permanent the research credit. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. the amendment in the nay a substitute recommended by the committee on ways and means now printed in the bill modified by the amendment printed in part b of the report of the committee on rules accompanying 24 resolution -- this resolution shall be considered as adopted. the bill abamended shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill as amended on -- and on any further amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways
and means. and two, one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 3 it shall be in order at any time on the legislative day of may 21, 2015 for the speaker to entertain motions that the house suspend the rules as though under clause 1 of rule 15. the speaker or his designee shall consult with the minority leader or her designee on a designation niff matter for consideration pursuant to this section. section 4, the committee on appropriations may at any time before 5:00 p.m. on wednesday, may 27, 2015, file privileged reports to accompany measures making appropriations for the fiscal year ending september 30 2016. section 5, on any legislative day during the period from may 22 2015, through may 29 2015 a, the journal of the proceedings of the previous day shall be considered as approved. and b, the chair may at any time declare the house adjourned to
meet at a date and time within the limits of clause 4, section 5, article 1 of the constitution be announced by the chair in declaring the adjournment. section 6, the speaker may appoint members to perform the duties of the chair for the duration of the period addressed by section 5 of this resolution as though under clause 8-a of rule 1. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one hour. >> mr. speaker, during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. i now yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for such time as he may consume. >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> thank you, mr. speaker.
mr. speaker, on tuesday, the rules committee met and reported a rule for two bills. mr. stivers: h.r. 2262, the space act of 2015. and h.r. 880, the american competitiveness and research act of 2015. house resolution 273 provides a structured rule for consideration of h.r. 2262, and a closed rule for consideration of h.r. 880. the resolution provides one hour of debate equally divided between the chair and ranking member of the committee on science space, and technology, or h.r. 2262. and one hour of debate equally divided between the chair and ranking member of the committee on ways and means for h.r. 880. the resolution also provides for consideration of seven amendments to h.r. 2262 and provides for a motion to recommit on the bill. the rule provides the normal
recess authorities to allow the chair to manage pro forma sessions, provides the committee on appropriations the opportunity to file reports during the district work period, and provides suspension authority for thursday to provide flexibility on the last day prior to a district work period. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the resolution and the underlying legislation. both of these bills represent critical investments in science and technological innovation. on the floor this week we have debated and passed several pieces of legislation to encourage research and development of new technologies and ideas moving our economy and our country forward and cementing our place in the world as the leader in scientific discovery. these discoveries in research, they require, promote and create high tech, high-paying jobs and -- that can have untold benefits
to our economy, benefiting all americans. the rule and underlying legislation we have under consideration today continues that objective. i look forward to discussing these critical issues with our colleagues here in the house. h.r. 2262 the space act of 2015, is a package of four bills that will update the commercial space launch act. h.r. 2262, the space act, as introduced by the majority leader, the gentleman from california, mr. mccarthy will facilitate pro-growth environment for commercial space -- 2349 commercial space industry by encouraging private sector investment and creating a more stable and predictable regulatory environment. h.r. 1508 the space and resource exploration and utilization act introduced by the gentleman from florida, mr. posey, will promote the development of a united states commercial space resource exploration and utilization industry and will increase the
exploration and utilization of resources in outer space. h.r. 2261, the commercial remote sensing act introduced by the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. bridenstine, will facilitate the continued development of the commercial remote sensing industry and protect our national security. and finally, h.r. 2263, the office of space commerce act, proposed by the gentleman from california mr. rohrabacher, will rename the office of space commercialization to the office of space commerce and will seek to foster conditions for economic and technological growth of the united states space commerce industry. this package of bills will ensure american leadership in space by fostering a strong and vibrant commercial space industry. without this legislation, the commercial space industry may face a myriad of regulatory
hurdles that would threaten america's continued exceptionalism in space exploration. the other underlying bill in the rule h.r. 880, addresses the research and development tax credit. in 1981, president reagan signed into law a critical research and development tax credit, but washington has let it expire and then renewed it over a dozen times since then. as we discussed last month with our tax credits mr. speaker, the r&d tax credit was included in a package of retroactive bills and extenders that was signed by the president on december 19 last year. providing just seven business days of certainty for businesses seeking to utilize this provision in our tax code. it along with all the others that exspired again on december 31 of last year currently remain expired. the temporary nature of the now expired research credit limits its effectiveness which prevents some businesses from
understanding and having certainty on long-term investments in u.s.-based research and development. more research and development means more innovation, greater economic growth, and more american jobs. in 2012 american companies invested $302 billion in research and development. as of 2011, 1.47 million americans work directly in research and development. increased certainty combined with simplification ever our tax code would lead to more research and more american jobs. investment in research and development is key to america remaining the world's leader in innovation. the percentage of patents awarded by the u.s. patent office has increased each year, but the share awarded to u.s. innovators is declining. in the year 2000, 54% of the patents awarded were of american origin by 2014 it fell to 48%.
from 2001 to 2011 america's share of global research and development declined from 37% to just 30%. by making the research and development research credit permanent researchers can stop worrying about whether congress is going to extend the tax credit and can instead focus on new discoveries that will help fuel our economy and grow jobs. i look forward to debating these bills with our house colleagues and i urge support for the rule and the underlying legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. i thank the gentleman from ohio for yielding the customary 30 minutes for debate. i rise today in opposition to the rule and underlying bills. before i proceed, i did not speak during the one minutes and i want to also take cognizant of
this being the 50th anniversary of head start and additionally this month of may being foster care month. like many members, i have a young person that has a more than compelling story about foster care, devon johnson from royal palm, florida. is traveling -- shadowing me today and i'm delighted that he and other youngsters have this opportunity. mr. speaker, this rule provides for consideration of h.r. 880, the american research and competitiveness act of 2015, and 2216 -- 62, the space act of 2015. two separate bills, fully unrelated in content and purpose. as the first order of business, i believe it's critical that i
take a moment to highlight the manner in which we are debating this rule today. the deliberation of multiple unrelated bills under a single rule is a disturbing trend that has ballooned under republican leadership and is one that threatens the very foundation of the democratic process. forcing several pieces of legislation into a single rule not only prevents members of this chamber from making informed judgment about the proper floor procedure for each measure but also leads to disjointed and often perfect flexing debate about an assortment -- perfect plecting debate about an assortment of issues. the house floor should reflect where the members stand on the specific questions at issue. not on a set of complex and unrelated procedures, some of which they support and others which they oppose.
indeed just yesterday the house considered h.res. 271, a rule providing for consideration of three measures. the highway and transportation funding act, the legislative branch appropriations act, and the america competes re-authorization bill. . the debate on this rule vacillated from surface transportation projects, to funding for the legislative branch, to the prioritization of science research development. such debate erodes the integrity of house proceedings by creating confusing alternations in subject matter that eliminate the ability to reinforce a line of rbing -- reasoning or respond to opposing arguments. the grab bag approach has skyrocketed since republicans
assumed control of the house in 2011. with a record 49 grab bag rules reported out during the 113th congress. even more disheartening, we're on schedule to shatter this record in the 114th congress, having already approved an unconscionable 14 of these rules in less than five months. in fairness, the chairman of the rules committee did in response to one of my colleagues and myself the day before, say that this practice is not likely to continue at its present pace and i await the opportunity for him to fulfill his view with reference to that matter. mr. speaker, i stand before you today for consideration of yet another grab bag rule, governing two bills of significant importance, that as a result of
this rule will undoubtedly escape the due consideration each deserves. the american research and competitive act of 2015 would make permanent a tax credit for qualified research expenses that expired at the end of last year. it is my strong belief that democrats and republicans alike support a tax credit that will help facilitate innovation and foster advancements in research enabling american companies to grow and prosper. technological innovation stemming from e-- from research and development serves as an important engine to our nation's economic growth. my opposition to this piece of legislation, therefore comes in first part from my republican colleagues' decision to make this tax credit permanent in
what i view as a fiscally responsible way my republican friends have long touted themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility. for this reason, i find it a bit insincere that they now seek to implement a tax credit with no offsets for lost revenue. as a result, the joint committee on taxation estimates that this bill would add almost $182 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years. i've stated time and time again that we cannot continue to provide tax cuts and credits without a mechanism to pay for them. it's comical to me that my republican friends claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility while they, in the same breath, advocate a
measure that would add nearly $200 billion to the federal deficit. in addition to this legislation's reckless budgetary impact i disagree with the piecemeal approach the majority has taken in making these tax credits permanent. more than 50 tax provisions expired at the end of last year. many of them critical to middle and working class and, yes, poor families. and yet, instead of addressing the issues facing our tax coat in a comprehensive, bipartisan way, the majority has decided to leave certain tax credits, ones that were directly -- that would directly improve the lives of hardworking american families, such as the work opportunity tax credit, the new markets tax credit and renewable energy tax
credit, they lee them to an uncertain fate. the american people expect, and i'm assured that they deserve a tax code that supports our shared priorities. cherry picking tax credits to extend and then allowing those credits to dramatically increase the deficit is, in my view a step in the wrong direction. it is an unacceptable step away from bipartisan, comprehensive tax reform. i agree, as most of my colleagues likely do as well, that the research tax credit is critical for american innovation. that is why i'm truly disappointed, although not surprised that my republican friends have again chosen to place partisan politicking above the needs of our constituents.
this rule also provides for consideration of the space act of 2015. another piece of one-bipartisan legislation that has been distorted into an unrecognizable measure that up and downers to industry giants without regard for the safety of the american public or of space flight passengers. while the enticement of space travel hovers over the objectives of this legislation, we must address the reality of what this bill seeks to accomplish. first this will reads like a laundry list of commercial space launch industry requests. exempting it from needed safety regulations and providing essentially complete immunity for civil lawsuits by removing claims related to commercial space launches from state court and mandating that they be heard
in federal court, where few appropriate legal remedies exist. in practice this measure will immunize commercial space companies from legal liability, even in cases of recklessness or intentional misconduct. also troubling, this bill provides tremendous subsidies for insurance coverage that's kind of interesting to protect wealthy recreational spacecraft passengers. why on earth -- and there's no pun intended here, are we spending taxpayer dollars on individuals wealthy enough to travel into space for sport? while it is uncontested that the issues of these bills seek to address are important, the partisan way in which they have been presented prevents a robust
deliberation and i therefore oppose both the rule and the underlying bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from ohio. mr. stivers: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i would like to respond to some of the comments of the gentleman from florida and remind him that each bill will be separately debated and that obviously this combined rule is a floor time management technique that the chairman of the rules committee yesterday said was an aberration. i take him at his word and i think it's important to note that during democratic majority's -- during democratic majorities this was certainly not an unheard of practice either. i do want to make sure that i reate -- reiterate that every bill will be separately debated and i remind the gentleman, in the time we have to debate the rule, if we stick to the topics related to the bills and the
rules, it will help us manage our floor time even better. i would like to, with that yield five minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. posey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. posey: i thank the gentleman from ohio for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the rule and the underlying legislation. despite some of the comments we have heard from across the aisle this morning, i remember my first two years, my first term here, not one time was i allowed to even file a single amendment to a single bill here. all the rules were closed and it was run like a -- like a king would run a kingdom, not a democratic republic. here today i think the other side has already filed seven ealts on one of these bills. that's seven times more than i ever got to dream about filing when you ran this place. another great thing about this bill you actually get to read it before we pass it. we've done all our bills like
that since we've taken control. you get to read the bills before they're passed. when y'all were in the majority, we had to pass them before you read them, i think you remember the famous quote. the only grab bag i see here, you refer to this as a grab bag the only grab bag i see is the litany of totally unrelated subjects rattled off as if they somehow related to this bill. that doesn't pass a straight face test. now for the bill. i'd like to thank the majority leader kevin mccarthy and chairman lamar smith for their hard work on this space act. the space act will help ensure american leadership in space, facilitating the growth and stability of the commercial space industry. this is an important historic -- important, historic and exciting piece of legislation this legislation includes many important provisions to update our laws and the oversight of
the commercial space industry, including title 2 of the space resource exploration and utilization act historic, bipartisan bicameral legislation. introduced with my colleague from the state of washington, derek kilmer. i appreciate the support of h.r. 1508 incorporated herein has received from many members of the science committee and the thorough work and research of senators patty murray and marco rubio who introduced identical legislation in the united states senate. the space act also includes a provision which would streamline regulations. and encourage cooperation between government agencies. commercial space activities to eliminate red tape and bureaucracy that are impeding development of america's
commercial space industry. the florida aviation administration, the department of defense, the national err naughtics and space administration and other agencies are all involved in overseeing many commercial pace launches and -- space launches and sometimes there are duplicative measures that could be streamlined, cutting costs to both the federal government and commercial companies. and making the united states companies more competitive in the global marketplace. let me add that this bill includes a provision requiring the f.a.a. to provide direction for space support vehicles, also known as experimental aircraft. unfortunately, for too long, the f.a.a. has held off providing direction by means of a regulatory framework for these endeavors to safely support the united states commercial space. in florida, there is such an entity, approved by nasa, and operating out of the kennedy
space center which the f.a.a. grounded. because they used experimental aircraft. this is a testament that f.a.a. needs serious reform and needs to be brought into the 21st century. in short, these space act -- the space act is a critical piece of legislation to the future of our commercial space industry. and it's important to our space exploration efforts as well. i thank my colleagues again for their work on the space act and urge all members to support the rule today and passage of this important legislation. i thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman reserves. mr. hastings: i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from michigan, the ranking member on the committee on ways and means and a good friend of mine, mr. levin. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to direct their remarks to the chair and not to
other members in the second person. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. levin: thank you for yielding the time. this debate is not about support for the r&d credit. democrats have a long track record of supporting the r&d tax credit. indeed, i have often been the author of legislation to strengthen it this debate purely and simply is about fiscal responsibility. about taking one tax provision and making it permanent without paying one dime for it. when former chairman camp unveiled a tax reform proposal last year he, undertook a comprehensive consideration of the more than 50 tax provisions that expired at the end of last year but in a fiscally responsible manner.
this bill does just the opposite. it continues a helter-skelter approach toward tax extenders without any regard whatsoever for paying the hundreds of billions of dollars that -- it costs to make them permanent. last year, ways and means republicans passed 14 permanent extensions at a cost of $825 billion. they went nowhere because the president has made clear his opposition to this approach. with this bill, this year's price tag has reached $586.3 billion. it's particularly glaring that majority is passing unpaid for tax cuts the very same week that they once again put off a long-term extension of highway funding because they are unable to find a revenue stream.
there's no lack of support for the r&d credit among us democrats. it's the approach republicans are taking that we oppose and strongly so. fiscally irresponsible indeed, and it would leave behind vital provisions that help hardworking american families like the expansion of the income -- earned income tax credit, the child tax credit and the american opportunity tax credit. we stand ready to work with the majority on tax reform and on a long-term extension of highway funding. today's r&d bill is tax reform in reverse. it makes talk of fiscal responsibility hypocrisy and creates another big financial pothole standing in the way of long-term highway funding.
so vote no on this rule and vote no on the bill relating to r&d tax credit. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: thank you mr. speaker. i would like to advise my friend from ohio that i have no further speakers and i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman yield his time? mr. hastings: i'm prepared to close at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized to close. mr. hastings: we were supposed to have one additional speaker, ms. jackson lee, and i ask unanimous consent that any statement that she may provide be placed into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hastings: mr. speaker i stand steadfastly against not only the way in which we've been conducting business with regard to the way we report out rules but also to both underlying bills for their
partisan posturing and failure to address the important issues facing the middle class in this country. we cannot continue to provide tax credits without establishing a revenue offset. and tax policies that favor a partisan agenda and push us further away from needed comprehensive tax reform or off of legislative gifts to industry giants at the expense of the american public. mr. speaker, memorial day is next monday so if we defeat the previous question i'm going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up representative brownlee's help hire our -- brownley's help hire our heroes act, h.r. 607. it would re-authorize the veterans retraining assistance
program which expired in march of 2014. that program paid for veterans to get training for high he had -- manned occupations and -- high-demand occupations and it helped more than 76,000 veterans. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: any objection? no objection, so ordered. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question and to vote no on the underlying bills, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. stivers: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the remarks from the gentleman from florida, but i'd like to respond to a few of the comments. the r&d tax credit has been overwhelmingly supported for
the last 16 extensions, last time garnering 378 votes, only 46 members voted against the r&d tax credit. the r&d tax credit will be passed again. in fact, the gentleman from michigan admitted, mr. speaker, that the vast majority of democrats will vote to extend the r&d tax credit. in fact, they'll do it every year for the next 10 years, like they have the last few years, and when it's done every year they don't insist it's paid for so if you'll do it for 10 years in a row without paying for it the entire budget window why don't we just all create some certainty for our businesses so we can invest in high-tech jobs and growing our economy, mr. speaker? let's create certainty for the american people. let's pass the bill. let's pass the rule. let's pass the previous question. you know i think unfortunately the arguments from the gentleman from florida, mr. speaker, really encourage cliff
politics, high stakes, expiring legislation that the american people don't want. the american people want us to create certainty. they want us to support jobs. they want us to support our technological innovation in this country, mr. speaker, and so i would urge my colleagues to support the rule, to support the underlying bills mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, on that -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered.
members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20 the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption of the resolution. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the gentleman from pennsylvania -- for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. brady: thank you mr. speaker. on tuesday, may 12, we had a horrific train derailment-crash in the city of philadelphia. first off, our thoughts and prayers are with the eight men and women that lost their lives and the over 200 that were injured. i've never been more proud of the men and women that live and work in the city of philadelphia, the sister of brother-in-law love and sister-in-law affection -- brotherly love and sister of affection. we had this major catastrophe at 9:15 at night. within four minutes, our first responders, our police, our fire, police commissioner ramsey fire commissioner sawyer were on the scene. the scene was total darkness, and we had volunteers from the
neighborhood that even joined in. imagine, total darning dark, the only light were flashlights back and forth. i can never be more prouder of the mayor of philadelphia since tuesday to sunday was on that scene constantly. orchestrating -- orchestrating the administration people, moving them around, consoling families, making sure that all were accountable and even making sure that their belongings were given back to them. i can't be more proud of our hospitals and our universities. universities who opened the doors for loved ones to come and our hospitals doctors, nurses all the men and women that work there doctors that worked 30 hours and went back home and couldn't sleep and came back and worked another 12 hours. but most important, two things really struck me. temple hospital in the city of philadelphia had a lot of the injured people admitted to their hospital, and the
students that go to temple university heard about it jumped on their bicycles and rode down to assist all those in the hospital, whether it be pushing a gurney or whether it would be consoling a family member or putting a family member with a loved one. and the neighbors, the neighbors ran out again, total darkness. 200 people-plus injured, run through, helping throughout all the soot, picking them up, pulling them out of the trains bringing water, bringing towels wiping them down. one lady said i'm sorry in your home, i'm full of soot and dirtying your couch. the lady said, it's ok. we can buy more couches and by more, you know, more things, whatever we need to buy. you can't buy your health back. so we want to be here to be able to help you as best as you can. i'm honored to be standing here with my colleagues from pennsylvania and some, gregory
lost a loved one. some others throughout the -- you know, throughout the country. i'm extremely proud to recognize jeff, the chairman, and ranking member, mike capuano, who assisted me and toured this site with me. i appreciate their concern and appreciate their being here. so mr. speaker, the best way we can honor these men and women is to make sure this accident never again happens in the united states of america. and with that i would like to ask for a moment of silence. mr. brady: thank you, mr. chairman.
the speaker pro tempore: without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the question is on the adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida requests a recorded vote. a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 240, the nays are 185. without objection the motion to reconsider -- the resolution is adopted and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the house will come to order. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. ryan: pursuant to house
resolution 273, i call up the bill h.r. 880 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 79 h.r. 880 a bill to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to simplify and make permanent the research credit. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 273, the amendment in the nature of a substitute reck mened by the committee on ways and means printed in part b of house report 114-127 is adopted an the bill as amended is considered read. the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan, and the gentleman from california, mr. thompson, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 880. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ord. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i'll yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such
time as he may consume. mr. ryan: this is really simple. we've had the research and development tax credit in law since 1981. it has periodic expirations in it. every time the law expires, we renew the law. why? because we think it's a fwd policy and on a bipartisan basis, our votes have reflected that. we believe since we renew this one year at a time, it does not do very well in giving businesses the time to plan and the ability to consider long-term investments. they need certainty. one of the problems plaguing this economy is the lack of certainty. what this bill does is it makes it permanent. this is something we think ought to be a permanent feature of our tax code. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will come to order. the house will come to order. please take conversations out of the aisles and off the back aisle.
mr. ryan: one of the arguments you're going to hear is, well this has to be paid for. well, i want people to understand what that means when people say that. they're saying that to keep taxes where they are, we need to raise them on other people. to put it another way, the minority is saying they want permanent extension for tax credits from the stimulus bill which was temporary but they're saying if we make permanent provisions that have bipartisan support, that are extended on an annual basis, but if we make them permanent, all of a sudden, we have to raise taxes on some other hardworking americans to keep these taxes in place. i think that's incorrect. we don't think it jives with reality and it's important to unleash job creation to keep research and development jobs in america, that we make this permanent. i'd like to ask unanimous consent that the question of adopting a motion to recommit on h.r. 880 may be subject to
postponement as though under clause 8 of rule 20. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. ryan: at this time i'd like to ask unanimous consent that mr. brady, the author of h.r. 880, manage and control the time of the majority and reserve the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. thompson: thank you mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thompson: i want to start by clarifying one thing. my friend from wisconsin talked about what it means when you say paid for. what it means when you say paid for is you paid for the bill. there's a certain cost associated with any legislation that we do and if we don't pay for it, it's added on to our deficit. so when we raise concerns about whether or not this tax bill or
any other bill that comes to the floor for debate is paid for, the concerns that we're raising are in direct correlation to the fact that they -- that it needs to be paid for. not it needs to be added to the deficit or it needs to be added to our national debt. there's no debate on the issues on the merits of the r&d credit. a majority of my democratic colleagues and i too belief in and support the r&d credit. it has proven to facilitate advancements in new technologies spark new innovations, and create good-paying jobs for hardworking americans and benefits hardworking american families. it's critical to helping u.s. companies innovate and compete in a global marketplace. however, what we do object to is the approach by which this is being done. as i said it's unpaid for and it's outside of tax reform.
last year, the previous chairman of the ways and means committee, chairman camp, unveiled a tax reform proposal that made the r&d credit permanent. but the cost of the provision was paid for. he did it responsibly. it was responsibly offset. this bill, like all the other individual tax bills we've considered thus far this year, does not pay for any of them. it does just the opposite. it continues a healther gentlemanner approach -- a helter-skelter approach toward tax extenders without any regard to paying the hundreds of millions of dollars it costs to make them permanent. moreover, it poisons the bipartisan process that's going to be critical if we are going to get tax reform done this political exercise that we're doing today shows the misplaced priorities of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. not only did they recently vote to raise taxes and cut programs
for millions of hardworking american families in their budget resolution, they're also leaving behind important provisions to help them. like the expansion of the earned income tax credit, the child tax credit, and the american opportunity credit. when it comes to corporations and the wealthy, cost doesn't seem to be a problem. yet programs vital to the well being of hardworking families and communities are significantly cut or done away with. what's particularly glaring is we can't even pass a long-term transportation bill which is by far more important to our national security, our economic growth, and our competitiveness because why we -- the reason we can't pass it is because the majority is unable to be able to find a way to pay for it. yet here we're taking up a bill that cost $181 billion add that
to the other unpaid for tax cut bills that this body has already passed this year, and we will have added $586 billion to the deficit. that's almost a half trillion dollars. that's over a half trillion dollars. and what do we have to show for it? the president's already said that he's going to veto this bill, what's the point? why are we wasting the time and expense of debating this. it's going to be vetoed anyway. what we should be doing is working together to pass legislation that's vital to every congressional district's long-term transportation bill and comprehensive tax reform. mr. speaker, we stand ready to work with the majority on these important things, today's bill just takes us further away from that goal. therefore i ask that we vote no on this bill and make sure we vote for america. i reserve the rest of my time.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman is recognized. mr. brady: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. brady: when it comes to research initiatives, america is falling behind our global competitors. unless the u.s. remains the world's leading innovator, our economy will suffer while middle class families and talented college graduates will see opportunities lost to foreign countries. making permanent this research financing here in the united states will enable state of the art computer systems and breakthroughs in research. while we once led in r&d incentives, we have now dropped to 27th among our global competitors. america's share of global research and development, while it's still big has dropped. from 39% before the turn of this new century to 31%.
look at china. by contrast china's r&d spending has increased four fold. it's poised to surpass that of america by 2022. what permanency provides is certainty to u.s. innovators. it makes the federal budget score keeping far more honest and it removes the ast risk from this temporary provision so that pro-growth tax reform can advance. this year we've added a new provision that will allow eligible small businesses to count the credit against the a.m.t., the alternative minimum tax. this is an important provision to enable america's newest innovators to develop even more cutting edge, market dominating technology. i'm proud to have worked on this important tax incentive with my friend john larson, democrat from connecticut, -- from connecticut. the house passed this provision with a strong bipartisan vote last year. while the economy is improving, there are millions of americans
still looking for full-time work. and millions more middle class families whose paychecks have been stagnant for years. if we want a permanently strong economy, we need a permanent research and development tax credit. the time for excuses is over. stand with innovation in america, or stand with china and other countries with the r&d being shipped to the rest of the world. i say we stand with america, our innovators, our college graduates and our businesses. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to recognize mr. rangel, the congressman from new york, former chair of the committee and a strong proponent of responsible tax policy and i yield him three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. rain fwell: thank you, congressman thompson, and mr. speaker. i was listening to the el --
mr. rangel: thank you, congressman thompson and mr. speaker. i was listening to the words of my friend from texas about the importance of research and development and i can't think of any member on our committee that could not agree with him more. while he was eloquently speaking about how important it was to our great nation, i was even thinking about our trade bill if this is packaged in such a way that we would have our work force with the backup of research and development a trade bill that would include in it educational possibilities for the work force that would have infrastructure there and would have america knowing that we just wasn't talking about success of the corporations, but the success of america. and also the part that he mentioned continuity so that our business people would know exactly what they could depend on. . i just can't for the life of me see how they would know which
part of the tax code or which week that we intend to bring up knowing it's going to be vetoed if really in our hearts what we want is continuity. there is overwhelm one way to get continuity -- only one way to get continuity, that is to reform the tax code. if you take out all of the gems just to get a no vote against it politically you're rely harming bipartisanship. that's what we need. that's what the tax code needs. that's what our country needs. a tax code that eliminates all of the loopholes and concentrate on those things our country needs. but of course if politics is more important than policy, if all we are trying to do is play i gotcha, if all we want to say we love research and development but we no darn well politically hasegawa not going to pass, if we got to say that we all want
reform but now that we have both houses republican, house and senate, but we dare not talk about tax reform well, i don't think we want to pli this political game. what ---play this bill plame. what we do want to do is research and development is what keeps america competitive. it should not be played with. it should not be political. it should be a part of the tax reform bill. if you can't do it when you have control of the finance committee in the senate, and refuse to do it when you are in charge of the ways and means committee, and have a president that's calling out for comprehensive fairness and equity in tax reform, it's painful to see how the eloquence of love for this country can be diser distorted by having votes on legislation that we know is never to become law. so i say as i take my seat, i am
not giving up on tax reform. i hope that republicans come together and have a meaningful bill, not for our committee -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: yielding myself 15 seconds of the the president has threatened to veto this bill and the question's clear. why is the president standing for those who would ship jobs overseas? why isn't he standing with republicans and democrats in congress, in this house, to keep those jobs and research here in america? with that i yield two minutes to a new member of the ways and means committee who understands research and development in the triangle of north carolina, mr. holding, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. holding: mr. speaker, i want to thank chairman brady for offering this important piece of legislation. the research and development credit play as crucial role in the continued economic growth of our nation spurring innovation and supporting high-skilled,
high-paying jobs. innovation has been a huge driver of growth in my district. and because of the breakthrough technologies coming out of the research triangle park, north carolina has become a leader in american innovation. in and around my district i have seen how important the r&d credit has been to our nation's innovative countries like as e.t.c., amongst a host of others. i urge my colleagues to support such companies and their employees and the families of those employees by making this important credit permanent. right now, mr. chairman -- mr. speaker, a growing number of foreign countries are increasing innovation and advancing manufacturing by providing generous and permanent r&d tax credits along with lower corporate tax rates. in fact, according to a study,
the u.s. ranks 22nd in research incentives among industrialized countries. we owe our innovators better. in order to remain a leader in an increasingly global economy we should continue to support and incentivize research and innovation here in the united states. passage of this bill will provide companies and researchers with the certainty and support they need to keep america and my district in north carolina in the forefront of global innovation and send a strong message that we stand behind the groundbreaking research being conducted by our nation's innovators. mr. speaker, i urge support for this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. thompson: i just want to point out, the president is standing with those of us who support the r&d credit. he wants it done responsibly. he wants it paid for and part of
tax reform. just like all of us we support the r&d credit. we want it paid for. we want it part of tax reform. and to suggest that voting against this is standing with china i find somewhat an ironic statement made by my friend from texas given the fact that china already holds so much of the u.s. debt. all this does is empower them more give them more of our debt. i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, congressman doggett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. doggett: there is one type of innovation in which these republicans are truly unexcelled. there is no competition. and that is the innovation in names, in naming these bills. they salute climate deniers and flat earth society by slashing funding for earth science that is strongly opposed by geophysicists and one academic after another.
what do they call it? the competes act. and on this measure, its companion, they borrow almost $200 billion from anyone who will lend it to us to give mostly to the largest corporations, largely for doing research that they would be doing even if they weren't rewarded. they call that the american research and competitive act. that is true innovation. they don't need a credit. they ought to get a prize for being contortionists when it comes to these measures. this particular bill just digs us deeper and deeper into debt while adding very little to our research capability. and that's truly unfortunate. since america's future competitiveness is in jeopardy, and that's outlined this very day in innovation lies on weak foundation, a "new york times" economic column. as eduardo porter notes r&d
research has flatlined over the last few years as a share of our economy. other countries are leaving us behind. government budgets for basic research the biggest source of financing for scientific inquiry actually fell in 2013 to substantially below its level a decade ago. indeed, the republican budget makes significant cuts to research, including hundreds fewer research grants than the president sought at both the national institutes of health and the national science foundation. i think we need more than another ice bucket challenge to fund research for cures for cancer and diabetes, a.l.s., aids, and the like. we need the resources to tackle problems that are touching every family in this country. unfortunately, this r&d credit that's being made permanent without reform has required american taxpayers to subsidize
the development of electronic cigarettes and other products to addict our children to nicotine instead of using those dollars to fight those dread diseases to which nicotine contributes. and corporate research generally is focused more and more on the next quarter's reports to wall street to which excessive corporate compensation is tied instead of focusing on basic research. porter concludes in the same article that this particular bill is, quote unlikely to help much and he notes the conclusion of the congressional research service an objective source, that this regularly renewed credit delivered at most a modest stimulus to domestic business -- do you have another minute? mr. thompson: yield the gentleman one more minute. mr. doggett: over the last decade. i support a permanent research and development credit to incentivize more research. the question is how do we pay for it and how do we ensure that
it actually encourages more jobs leads to more research, and more economic development, instead of just giving a reward to those who are already doing something in this area to advance their product? and nothing of course, prevents multinationals from taking the credit and putting the patent or copyright in some foreign tax haven and avoiding paying their american taxes. another reform that's necessary. we should reject this proposal in favor of a strong research credit that actually incentivizes necessary research made here in america and which is paid for in part by competitive -- comprehensive reform of this very credit. surely we don't need any more research today to know that today's bills are the wrong way to go for america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: mr. speaker, i'm proud to yield two minutes to the gentleman, one of the leaders of the ways and means committee, who understands you can't keep making excuses about
bringing r&d to america. you have to act. the gentleman from minnesota, mr. paulsen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for two minutes. mr. paulsen: i thank the gentleman for his leadership on this legislation and on the ways and means committee. mr. speaker members, america's long been a place for an idea that's set up in the garage, backyard become the next revolution in manufacturing or next lifesaving technology. we need a tax code that promotes innovation, entrepreneurship, growth. we need a tax code that allows the inventors and dreamers with a good idea to be able to go out there and succeed. this is critical legislation that comes at a very critical time. modernizing and making the research and development tax credit permanent will ensure that the united states remains competitive in the global marketplace. it's been around since 1981. been renewed 16 times. but when you renew a credit for one year two years, or you make it retroactive that doesn't work well for some companies that are allocating their
capital for research and development. in minnesota we are home to 400 medical device companies. research and development is their lifeblood. these manufacturers use research and development to invent new devices, new techniques, new procedures. these companies are also a very essential component to our economy in minnesota and also around the united states. we should be making america the number one destination to create and grow a business. making the research and development credit permanent will provide our nation's innovators that incentive and certainty that they need to develop the next big idea and help america win the future. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from california virginia tech. mr. thompson: i'd like to yield three minutes to a distinguished member of our ways and means committee, mr. blumenauer, from oregon a district filled with innovators all of whom would benefit from doing this policy the right way. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for three minutes.
mr. blumenauer: thank you. i appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. i was listening to my dear friend the gentleman from texas who is managing the bill for our republican friends i was struck for a moment when he talked about the disadvantage vis-a-vis china. how in a few years we are going to slip behind china in r&d development. he talked about the hundreds of thousands of jobs that could be available if we were able to redouble our efforts in research and development. and the concerns about the overall slippage of the united states into the middle of the pack when it comes to research. i was struck by those words. for a moment, i thought he was talking about the united states infrastructure. because we don't have to wait for three or four or five years to slip behind china. we are already being overshown
by their efforts. we are investing less than 2% of our gross domestic product in infrastructure. the chinese are investing 8% or more. the united states once had the finest infrastructure in the world. not any more. those international ratings that my good friend from texas talked about are very much the case for our infrastructure. we have dropped from first to fifth to 16th to 27th. i want to know where the alarm for my republican friends is about our falling behind while america falls apart? we are going to pass before the year's out the research and development credit. i hope we do it the right way but we'll do it. but what we haven't done in the 55 months since republicans took
control of the house of representatives, we have not had a single hearing on how we are going to finance our crumbling infrastructure. not one. in the meantime, we are told that this is off the table. a gas tax is off the table. we are going to do some smoke and mirror something. we just passed the 33rd short-term extension of the surface transportation bill. . my republican friends refuse to even consider the gas tax that ronald reagan championed in fact urged and congress more than doubled under his watch. in the last six months, we have had georgia, utah south dakota nebraska, idaho iowa, all raise their gas tax hoping that the
federal government will meet its obligations and be a partner, rebuilding and renewing america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is yielded 30 seconds. mr. blumenauer: where's the sense of urgency for the costs to families that are having $300 a year or more damage to their cars? the fact that we're not being able to move product because we're stuck in traffic and our ports, our airports, our roads, our rail, we just had an example of its instability where is the urgency? i respectfully suggest we reject this wrongheaded approach and deal with real tax reform and the r&d tax credit but in the meantime, maybe the ways and means committee could find a week that we could spend working together to rebuild and renew america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california
reserves. the gentleman from texas is reneeked. mr. brady: i'm proud to yield two minutes to a new member of the ways and means committee, mr. dold. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. dold: i thank my good friend from texas for his leadership. i want to thank mr. speaker for the time. i want to just address my good friend from oregon to say that, as someone on this side of the aisle, i, too, sense an urgency on transportation and infrastructure and know we need to step up and do something about it so we can have a robust economy system of we can be moving our goods and services around. i do look for us to be working on tax reform. but today we're talking about research and development. if we look about certainty, certainly we need certainty with regard to our transportation-infrastructure system. but we need certainty when it comes to research and development. businesses across our country, as they're looking to create the next new product, as they're looking to innovate, as they're
looking to create the next new thing, to improve the lives of individuals and enhance our nation, need to have that certainty to be able to look around the corner. we are moving forward on research and development a step at a time. we're re-authorizing it a year at a time, sometimes we're doing it retroactively, which means the businesses don't have the ability to plan and oftentimes don't. they're happy to take the tax relief but not really willing to plan. and oftentimes, having year and year programs that they're investing billions of dollars, creating thousands of jobs, innovation, mr. speaker is something that we should all be united behind. we want to innovate here in the united states. we want to create things here in the united states. we do not want to have a research and development situation which really fosters innovation outside of the united states. yes, we have slipped behind and that's something that republicans an democrats alike want to make sure that the united states is leading the charge. we need to be globally
competitive. we're not in a domestic economy. we're in a global economy. and if we want to be globally competitive, we cannot be ranked 22nd when it comes to research incentives. mr. speaker i come from northern district in illinois, we're the fourth largest manufacturing district in the country. mr. brady: grant an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. dold: we're the fourth largest manufacturing district in the nation. we need the infrastructure because we need to know how our raw materials come in, how our finished products go out, how we move people around. but we realize that they rely on the tax credit to innovate, to create the next new thing, the next new innovation. if we don't to it in the united states, they're doing it elsewhere. i just -- just got back from israel. one of the things that struck me as i swung by one of their
companies, they had a sign that said innovation never stops. this is a bipartisan initiative i ask my colleagues to support this initiative. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. thompson: i want to point out that my friend just speaking said that he too believes in transportation, we should be working on transportation and tax reform but, quote, today we're talking about r&d credit. mr. speaker members, the majority party sets the agenda. the reason we're not talking about transportation or tax reform is because they don't want to talk about it. they set the agenda. they're the ones who decided that today we're going to do this irresponsible tax big rather than looking at comprehensive tax reform or looking at transportation funding for our crumbling infrastructure. mr. speaker, i'm proud to yield three minutes of time to my
colleague and friend from california, the chair of the democratic caucus, congressman becerra. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from california for three minutes. mr. becerra: i thank my friend for yielding. let's make sure we get something straight. we all -- i don't think there's a member here on the floor who doesn't agree that we want to invest in research and development so we keep that invention, that innovation here at home and we create jobs that pay well here at home. we all want to incentive size that job creation. we all want to make sure the economy grows in the future. that's not what is at issue here. what's at issue is that this bill sends exactly the wrong message about our commitment to invest not just in our future but in our children and in what we call the middle class and the american dream. because see there's a cost involved in doing research and development tax credits. that's a tax break. we're willing to give companies a tax break that the families that are up in this gallery won't get. they won't get to write off from
their taxes when they file their taxes. they won't get to write off some of their costs for doing certain things because they're not companies and they're not doing research and development. but we as a community, as a country, are saying it's valuable to give a tax break to do that research that gives us the next invention. great. but there's a cost. how much? $180 billion. it ain't free. we've got to pay for it. so it's not an issue of not supporting research and development. it's wanting to be responsible. and be honest with the american people and say, let's pay for it. democrats are saying we could pay for it. let's close those tax breaks that are essentially tax loopholes that everyone in america would agree. that's not fair. use the money you save from closing tax loopholes to pay for something we all want which is research and development tax credit. it isn't flee. if we don't pay for it what happens? guess what, you don't want to pay for it, it's going to cost three times more than what we spend on our veterans.
we're going to stay, veterans you shouldn't get any services because we decided to do this research and development tax credit and didn't pay for it. or perhaps you want to tell the folks looking for a cure or cancer or diabetes, we're spending three times as much for this tax credit, unpaid for, than we do for the national institutes of health. this is not free. student loans. how many folks have to worry about paying student loans for the kids to go to college? the cost of this bill is about what it would cost to continue the programs we have in place for our kids who go on to college so we can keep the cost of student loans low. you want to eliminate that so people have to pay a will the more market rate interest rates for that? guess what, that's what we'd have to do. there are consequences. if we're going to get away from deficit spending, you've got to pay for things. if you think it's a priority pay for it. don't act like you can do these things for free. they -- they cost money. let's pay for what we all agree
is important. a research and development tax credit for companies that will do that research here in america. but let's not try to hoodwink the american public. this is not free. it's the right thing to do and just about every american family will say guess what, maybe i have to pay a few more dollars of taxes but i'm keeping that american company here, investing in innovation here, creating jobs in america. priorities, let's make the tough choices. let's vote against this and vote for a bill that payers in cost of something we want to do. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: i'm proud to yield one minute to the majority leader of the united states house of representatives, mr. mccarthy of california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding, i want to take a moment to thank the gentleman from texas for his leadership. you know, i listened to a lot of speakers on this floor, what is the cost not to nst in the future? -- not to invest in the future?
four out of 10 graduates out of college today can't find a job. how do you pay for that? you look toward the future. i'll tell you many in this country have followed the innovators in our history. mr. speaker, one happened to be steven job. steven job said, innovation distinguishes between a leader and a follower. you know that's true with people that's also true with countries. america leads because we take the principles of our past and we apply them to a changing future. we are the pioneers that always look to the next frontier. ready to challenge what others believe are impossible. innovation is key to our leadership and it is essential to our economic prosperity in an increasing come pet -- increasingly competitive 21st century. what washington needs to understand is the greatest innovations don't come from washington, it comes from the people.
it reminds me of what was going on in the early 1900's in this country. washington wanted to figure out the invention of flight. so the wisdom of government was let's just pay samuel langley to discover how to fly. we all knew what came true. we watched two brothers who owned a bicycle store to take to the skies from a small field in kitty hawk. transforming what we know of today. the r&d tax credit harnesses that american spirit. it makes space for the american people to lead us into the future. when ronald reagan first signed the r&d tax credit into law, he knew it would grow our economy and make america strong because it put our faith in the country's greatest assets. its people and the future. mr. speaker, today we are voting to make this tax credit permanent.
i think that's very good policy. i also think it shows what our values are. it shows that it's everyday heros who can lead us to the future of tomorrow system of i urge my colleagues to vote for this bill and i urge my colleagues to give the american people the tools to move america forward. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. thompson: i'd like to yield one minute to the democratic leader from kale, leader nancy pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. pelosi: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding and i thank him and -- i thank mr. thompson and ranking member levin and members of the committee for bringing clarity to this debate today. mr. speaker democrats have always believed that innovation is what keeps america number
one. i think that that is a feeling shared by all of us in the congress. our commitment on our side of the aisle, i know, is to science, to research and development that creates jobs, launches entire new industries, and gives themy rack louse power to cure. for americans to continue to lead in the 21st century, for taos meet the challenges of our time, for us to secure a strong and sustainable future for america's families and the next generation, we must commit to fueling the engines of innovation. when president kennedy challenged americans to reach for the moon, he reminded us that america must lead in innovation. the best of the nation can only be fulfilled if we are first and therefore we intend to be first. our leadership in science and industry, our hopes for peace
and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort. however, according to the american academy of arts and sciences, in these days, the united states has dropped to 10th place in national r&d investment as a percentage of g.d.p. as their report makes clear, unless basic research becomes a higher government priority than it has been in recent decades, the potential for fundamental scientific breakthroughs and future technological advances will be severely constrained. instead of meeting this urgent need and challenge, republicans are coming to this floor of this house today with not one, but two bills that do violence, do violence to that aspiration. first of all, we have the republican r&d so-called r&d bill a completely unpaid for
permanent and deficit exploding tax extension. democrats support r&d tax -- in fact -- well, i'll talk about it when i get to the second bill. we support it and will be offering a motion to recommit for a two-year extension to give congress, democrats and republicans, time to work together to pass comprehensive tax reform that loses loopholes and pays for making this tax credit permanent. but this bill alone with this bill alone republicans will explode the deficit by $182 billion. . this is just a part of a larger package of permanent, completely unpaid for republican tax measures this year that will add almost $600 billion to the deficit. over a half a trillion dollars
added to the deficit including this bill, the bill to hand $269 billion to the 5,400 richest families in america. 5,400 families and their estate tax bill would be getting the benefit of $269 billion paid for by the middle class in our country. depriving us of investments in our children's future. the fact is that house republicans have spent this entire congress blowing up the deficit with unpaid for tax give aways, overwhelmingly tilted to wealthy special interest. it's worth noting that this bill , my colleagues, hear this, this bill on the floor has nothing to do with enterprising start-ups that are unable to claim the r&d tax credit.
so some of you have said to me we have all these start-ups in my district. by and large they cannot benefit from this bill the way it is written. we would like to have written our motion to recommit to go further to do that, the parliamentarians say, because you prevented in your base bill we can't go further. on this same day, this is what's really stunning in the look of it all on the same day as you are saying, we are going to do a gotcha bill on r&d and challenge you all who support r&d not to vote for our approach, on the very same day lest anybody think this is an overwhelming interest in r&d on the republican side of the aisle, republicans are bringing to the floor a competes act that completely undermines everything to do with science and innovation in our country. it completely upsets our
innovation agenda. in the 110th congress we put for the the innovation -- forth the innovation agenda. a nonpartisan bill. anna eshoo, zoe lofgren took the lead going across the country, getting input nonpartisan input, academic input venture capital input into an innovation agenda. and that innovation agenda really calls for making permanent and modernizing the r&d tax credit. we see the relationship between science technology, innovation, and progress to keep america number one. but not done this way as we do on this. this is a trap in order to keep us from investing in innovation agenda. and that was something that bart gordon as chair of the science and technology committee fought for and achieved, arpa-e, you
know that. but instead today republicans are bringing a bill that totally does violence to all of this. i hope members willies en-- will listen to the alternatives presented by congresswoman eddie bernice johnson our ranking member on the committee. in the original competes act by the democratic congress supported by overwhelming number of republicans. a majority of the republicans defied their leadership and voted for the competes act in the 110th congress. and that original bill passed by the -- in a bipartisan way. we laid the foundation for new industries that provide jobs for our workers, that open new markets for american products that ensure that we continue to rise above the gathering storm. norma and others led the way to
ensure what the gathering storm was unless we made those investments in science and technology. as i said, we created arpa-e, so important. this republican bill betrays everything that the competes act did. the republican bill betrays everything that the competes act did. it is an assault on science. and a plan to surrender american leadership on innovation. instead of investing in research and development their bill flashes funding -- slashes funding for essential initiatives at the national science foundation, the national institutes of standards and technology the office of science and technology policy, the department of energy research. it cuts energy efficiency and renewable energy r&d by $496 million. it's a huge, half a billion dollar cut. nearly 30% below what was appropriated last year. cuts arpa-e by $1 40 million.
50% below the energy and water appropriations bill passed last week. most insidiously republicans are attacking science they don't even want to hear. just because you don't want to hear it doesn't mean it isn't true. in this competes bill that they are presenting, they are trying to silence the climate, environmental and social science that have consistently tried to ignore. the republican bill goes so far as to forbid federal agencies such as e.p.a. and ferc from using any research funded or developed by d.o.e., a brazen attempt to force their decision from scientific inquiry. the very idea on the floor today they come out of this masquerade of r&d tax credit, $182 billion added to the deficit, with the impression that they care about -- r&d into what?
r&d into nothing that is about innovation to keep america number one. these republican bills represent this is a perfect manifestation of republican trickle-down economics. the choice that our country has to make in the economy as we go forth is trickle-down economics versus middle class economics. trickle-down theories have not worked. they are what got us in twubble in 2008. and -- trouble in 2008, and it's exactly what the republicans are trying to take us back to today is one manifest case -- manifestation of that. the republicans are seeking to ransack our future our commitment to science and children's education, our commitment to bigger paychecks and better infrastructure for every american family. we need to come together in a bipartisan way and that is very possible. we did it with the competes act
before. to pay for r&d tax credit extension. we need to reject this republican assault on science that will happen later today. we need to invest in the future of innovation of our country, hardworking american families. we need to reject failed trickle-down economic theories and accept that the success of our nation depends on bigger paychecks for america's working families, r&d tax credits made permanent and modernize our significant -- are a significant part of that. but they are not a part of it if they take us deeper into debt, preventing us from making the investments in the future. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the fiscally irresponsible r&d bill and no on their destructive competes act and yes on the proposal made by congresswoman eddie bernice johnson. i thank her for her great leadership for keeping america
number one. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: i'm proud to yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. allen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. allen: thank you, mr. brady mr. speaker. i would like to remind my colleagues on the other side that under the leadership of the former presenter almost $1 trillion was spent on a stimulus package with nothing to show for it. i was in the business world then. i have been in the business world 37 years. the reason i ran for congress was to bring real world experience to this body. that is why i rise today in support of h.r. 80 -- 880. the reason for that is is because when you invest and you invest properly, there is a return. those families find jobs. and that's what this bill is about. 880 is to simplify and make
permanent the research and development tax credit. despite the fact that the research tax credit has been extended 16 times since its enactment, it remains a temporary measure. it is very difficult to plan based on temporary measures. clearly it is high time that we provide certainty for innovators in georgia and across the nation by make being this tax credit permanent. innovation is the lifeblood of the small business community which employs over 70% of the work force. innovation in the private sector is essential to driving our economy. and in fostering growth and creating jobs for americans now and in the future. it is our duty in congress to incentivize businesses so that innovators and entrepreneur can do what they do best and fill the ever-growing demand for jobs across our great nation. we have so many capable men and women willing to work so let's get out of the way of the
entrepreneurial american spirit and pass h.r. 880. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. thompson: i just want to point out that small businesses and the start-ups are disadvantaged if this bill passes. they can't take advantage of this. real world experience and business world experience i'm here to tell you as a small businessperson if you don't pay your bills, you go out of business. the leader had mentioned that this bill is going to cost $181 billion. but mr. speaker, members, if you add that $181 billion to everything else that the majority has passed in regard to un-paid-for-tax-cut that number jumps to $586.3 billion of unpaid for tax policy. now it's my pleasure to recognize for three minutes distinguished member of our ways and means committee from illinois, congressman davis.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for three minutes. mr. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. and i want to thank the gentleman from california for yielding me time. i also want to thank representative brady for his characterization of my state of illinois as being research driven. and indeed it is. i'm also proud to know that from the time i have been here i have always been number one or number two in our delegation of supporting research. though i am research oriented. but it amazes me how much double talk we engage in. we talk a great deal about deficit reduction. and reducing spending. yet at the same time we are passing a bill that is not paid for while we cut greatly needed
programs and activities that could give balance to individuals all over the country who are just simply trying to survive and make it. activities like medicaid and snap. in my communities and in many others throughout america we are struggling right now with the idea of how do you develop summer work opportunities for young adults so that we could have a real attack on some of the rash of violence and activity that we see approaching and being engaged in throughout urban america? i have always been in favor of research and development, and i have always been in favor of using tax incentives as a way of
spurring economic development and stimulating the economy. but you know, i'm also interested in passing credits, i'm interested in credits for businesses. we talked about businesses. but let's pass some credits so that businesses can hire hard -to-employ individuals so that they can hire these young people looking for summer jobs, something to do. so i'm in favor of credits. but i'm not in favor of a bill that is not paid for. a bill that will not be comprehensive across the board. and a bill that will put more wealth in the pockets of the 1% rein do nothing to aid the -- and do nothing to aid the overall economy. i thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back the balance of my
time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: mr. speaker i'm proud to yield two minutes to the gentleman from west virginia, mr. mooney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. mooney: thank you, mr. speaker. . government's view of the economy is pretty simple. if it moves, tax it. well, today more than ever president reagan's words ring true taxes are prohibitively high. we can take a step by passing the american research and competitiveness act of 2015. this legislation is simple. it will make the r&d tax credit permanent. by doing so, we reduce the amount of taxes that america's innovators pay by providing a 20% credit on research expenses.
according to a recent study, this policy will increase overall investment in research by $33 billion and result in 300,000 research-related jobs. in practical terms this means that a small business in the beautiful state of west virginia, which i represent or where you live, that spends $5 million a year on research could be eligible for a $500,000 tax credit. that's enough money to hire 10 new employees at $50,000 a year. we're talking about 10 new hardworking american taxpayers. we're talking about men and women who are given the dignity of work. they will pay taxes rather than possibly taking government assistance. when i ran for office, i promised the people of west virginia that i would create
jobs and bring economic freedom back to america. this bill takes us a step in that direction, so i encourage my colleagues to vote for it. thank you mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. thompson: is the gentleman ready to close? how much time do i have left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has six minutes and the gentleman from texas has 14. mr. thompson: i yield myself the balance of the time. i rise in support as i said earlier of r&d tax credit. my colleagues on this side of the aisle, we support r&d tax credit and as we have been saying here on the floor, it's an important credit and vital to our global competitiveness to jobs and economic growth and maintaining our position as the
world's leader in innovation. as i stated, and i will say it again, this bill isn't paid for. the majority is adding $161 billion to the deficit, with just this one bill. this is fiscally irresponsible. what i haven't been able to understand and i'm having trouble trying to figure it out is how we can pass bills that help corporations and the wealthy and add all the cost of that to the deficit, but then turn around and try to balance the budget and close the deficit on the backs of hardworking american families. what they are trying to do is by cutting the programs we need to grow our economy like education and infrastructure, an infrastructure bill we are waiting to hear from, a hearing on infrastructure that -- we're still waiting to see scheduled.
it's a double standard, it's hypocritical and we are ready and willing to work with the majority to strengthen the economy, including pro-growth reforms that benefit businesses and a comprehensive tax reform that will benefit all of america. but this is the wrong approach and we should not be party to this. i urge my colleagues to vote no. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i think one of the big problems with washington is everyone finds excuses not to do the right thing. truth is we need research and development here in america not overseas. we need the jobs that come with that here in america not overseas. we need frankly the future for
america here rather than overseas and republicans and democrats both agree on that. both sincerely agree on that. but today, we heard excuses and we'll hear excuses. we are told this doesn't fund infrastructure. it doesn't. this is about funding infrastructure of research and development and innovation, not through the government. this is through our entrepreneurs through apple and microsoft and the new research and ground-breaking drugs and medical breakthroughs. roads and bridges, we will tackle in another bill. we were told this isn't comprehensive tax reform. it's not. it's a critical step forward in that by taking a provision that has been temporary far too long and making it a permanent part of our tax code so we can invest in r&d with certainty and have
honest score keeping in our budget and we can take that first step toward real comprehensive pro-growth tax reform. we are told today as we have heard in the past, it's not paid for. but in fact, through the extension since 1981, these provisions haven't been paid for. our democrat friends passed these bills and supported them and haven't paid for. we have done the same, it was one year or two years at a time. to say this is fiscally irresponsible seems to me to be another excuse. the cost of doing this permanently is no more than the cost of doing it one or two years at a time. to think otherwise is sort of the line saying, that dessert doesn't have calories if i eat it standing up. the cost of r&d is the same. but the cost of not making it permanent is not much the same.
we know there will be more r&d in china and we will lose our lead as the world's innovator. so no more excuses. what we're looking for today is a bipartisan effort to make sure those jobs are here in america, that our companies have a chance to invest more and more and more each year. we want to give college graduates as the majority leader noted, four out of 10 college graduates can't find a job. that's wrong. we ought to give them some jobs and some hope and those college graduates are skilled and talented and deserve to be part of america's innovative society. that's what they decide and that's what we will deliver to them. i'm thrilled our democrat friends are talking about the deficit. the first year they took control of this house under the former speaker, they doubled the
deficit. the second year, they tripled the deficit. the third year, took it over to a trillion dollars until the american public said enough. and what we got for that spending is the worst economic recovered -- recovery. we have fewer people working in the work force before the recovery began. we are going backwards especially for our young people. today, in this bill this is research and development, both parties support. and the only reason we're hearing the excuses is that it's a republican bill this time. that's the only reason. research and development is not a republican proposal. it's not a democrat proposal, it's an american proposal we all support. we think our economy ought to grow not in washington but back home. and innovation matters and we
capture american r&d and for entrepreneurs, american technology companies all across america, i urge we stop the excuses and join together and take back america's leadership in innovation and create the jobs that our young people deserve. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 273, the previous question is ordered on the bill as amended. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: simplify and make permanent the research credits. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: is the
gentleman opposed to the bill? >> i am. the clerk: mr. neal of massachusetts moves to recommit the bill h.r. 880 to the committee on ways and means with instructions to report back to the house forth with. strike section 2 and insert the following, section 2 no increase or deficit or delay of comprehensive tax reform. nothing in this act shall result in one an increase in the deficit or two, a delay or weakening of efforts to adopt a permanent tax credit. section 3, two year extension of research credit, a, in general. section 41-h of the internal revenue code as amended by striking december 31, 2014 and inserting december 31, 2016. b, effective date, the amendment made by the section shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after december 31, 2014.
the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion. mr. neal: i'm opposed to this bill in its current form and will not kill the bill nor will it send it back to committee but proceed to final passage. we are six months into the new congress and what do we hear from the majority, more of the same, more of the same assurances, trust us on tax reform, it's on the way. first it was not to introduce tax bills, tax reform is on the way. it's just around the corner. the new refrain is, we want to fix the highway trust funt let's do tax return at the same time and we will vote to extend the r&d tax credit on another short-term basis. let's stop playing these games, my friend talked about extending
the deficits, did he forget that bill clinton left us with four straight balanced budgets and eight years they wrecked the trajectory of those budgets with $2.3 trillion worth of tax cuts. that's the reality and i heard him say that the democrats ran up the deficits and they forgot president bush was in between. if we weren't doing the estate tax bill, repealing it, what we could have done is perhaps extend and agree upon a robust r&d tax credit which i support. how about 10 years, put it in line and let private investment build around it. so if you are from massachusetts obviously, you are for a morrow bus r&d tax credit. who could be against that in massachusetts?
world-class universities, hospitals, we produce some of the highest and best tech investments. kendall square in cambridge, the highest concentration of r&d in the whole world. this credit is vital to keeping america in the innovation forefront and the start and stop nature has put a damper on the willingness of some firms to invest if they don't know the credit is going to be gone tomorrow. another chance to point something out that bears noting. research and development now is the lowest it's been in decades. and why is that? because of the rejection of science on my republican friends' side. private sector r&d is way down. the encouragement of the tax code is to buy smaller companies and take advantage of the innovation they have done and there's the opportunity here to build something around the r&d that we should be taking
advantage of here today, but we aren't doing that because of the notion of having rejected this science. the fickle nature of congress towards this credit is attributable to one fanth. we have not reformed the tax code since 1986. congressman brady wasn't born the last time we did tax reform 30 some odd years ago. he was but a wish in a couple's eye. that's how dated this argument is. there are some things we can agree upon. barack obama was not born in kenya. secondly and just as importantly, there is no imminent invasion of tax as that is being planned and the tax cuts aren't being scored. we are taking up the time debating this extender or extenders when we should be talking about tax reform that works for the middle class a
tax reform that does not reward investment. instead we are doing this hodge podge effort on tax extenders that makes no sense. and back in december, we will be right back here on this floor tackling the r&d credit for another year or two. before they say, you are wrong, i have been right in the last two cycles as to where we ended up with tax extenders. the president has said he would veto and i understand why we need to do talking points. but i submit this to mr. brady and he is my friend and we work together on many pieces of legislation, why don't we get r&d tax credit for 10 years so it can be built in the investment code of the american entrepreneur, so they know precisely what's going on tout there? instead of taking this tax
today that will never see the light of today. so this congress could be spending its time today talking about income disparity, downward wages robotics and what is putting america behind the curve. no we spend our time on these sorts of arguments. i hope we send it back to committee and come up with something we can all live up with and i thank the chair. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. brady: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. brady: mr. speaker, this democrat proposal does violence to america's research infrastructure, it does violence to america's economy, and it does violence to the future of our economy and to the hope of young people. we will not stand for this. vote no on this motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered on the
motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the motion is not agreed to. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. neal: mr. speaker, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the andrew. -- yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to the order of the house today, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. smith: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill h.r. 1806. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: mr. speaker i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. pursuant to house resolution 271 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 1806. the chair appoints the gentleman from kansas, mr. yoder, to preside over the committee of the whole.
the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 1806 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to provide for technological innovation through the prioritization of federal investment in basic research, fundamental scientific discovery, and development to improve the competitiveness of the united states, and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, and the gentlewoman from texas, ms. eddie bernice johnson, each will control 30 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. smith. mr. smith: mr. speaker i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i'm pleased to sponsor h.r. 1806, america competes re-authorization 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 re-authorizes civilian research programs at the n.s.f. n.s.f. 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 1 of the bill re-authorizes the national science foundation for two years and provides a 4.3% increase for research in related activities. the bill prioritizes funding for the directorates of biology, computer science,
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 n.s.f. by cutting funding for the social, behavioral and economic directorate in geosciences. federal budget constraints require all taxpayers' dollars to be spent on high-value science in the national interest. unfortunately n.s.f. 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 1800's. there are a dozen of other examples. the bill assures accountability by restoring the original intent of the 1950 n.s.f. act in requiring that all grants
serve the national interest. the n.s.f. has endorsed this goal. title 2 represents the science committee's commitment to enhancing stem education programs, a healthy and viable stem work force is critical to american industries and ensures our future economic prosperity. the definition of stem has 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 3 includes three bipartisan bills the science committee approved in march. those bills h.r. 1119, the research and development efficiency act the scientific 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 4 supports the important measurement standards and technology work taking place at the national institute of standards and technology laboratories, manufacturing expansion 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 5 re-authorizes the department of energy office of science for two years at a 5.4% 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 d.o.e. to certify that its climate science work is unique and not being undertaken by another federal agency. title 6 re-authorizes the d.o.e.-applied research and development development programs in fiscal years 2016 and 2017. they include the office of electricity, the office of nuclear energy, the office of energy efficiency and renewable energy the office of fossil energy and the advanced research projects. h.r. 1806 refocuses some spending on late-stage commercialization efforts within the office of energy efficiency and renewable energy through research and development efforts. the bill requires d.o.e. 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 7 proposes to cut red tape and bureaucracy in the
d.o.e. technology transfer process. it allows contractor operators at d.o.e. national laboratories to work with the private sector more efficiency by delegating signature authority to the directors of the laboratories themselves rather than d.o.e. officers where it is valued at less than $1 million. it requires d.o.e. to assess its capability to authorize host and oversee privately funded fusion research and the next generation vision reracketor prototypes. currently the private sector has little incentive to build reactor prototypes due to 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, and i'll
reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlelady from texas is recognized. ms. johnson: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. johnson: today i must unfortunately rise in opposition to the america competes re-authorization. it is unfortunate because i was a strong supporter of both the original competes act as well as the 2010 re-authorization. both of those bills passed with bipartisan support and both bills reflected the recommendations of the national academy's groundbreaking 2005 report "rising above the gathering storm." its work 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 c.e.o., 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 investments 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 southerly in need of a recommitment -- 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 in 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 that what we are doing here today and why these issues are so important. since 2010 when we passed the last competes re-authorization, 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% increase in r&d
spending each year. perhaps not surprisingly, the 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. what is the response from our majority to this crisis? absolutely nothing. that's 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 abandoned the
recommendation by the scientific grant making process and pitting different research disciplines against each other. i want to be clear about what it in this majority that they are 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 things to do that we must by necessity 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 benefit from those past investments today. but the world isn't standing still. if we don't recommit our resources, we will be surpassed. the bill before us fails to
secure our nation's future and for that reason i must oppose this. i'm not alone in my opposition. we have received more than 40 letters of statements of concern or outright opposition from over 70 different groups including the american association for advancement of science, the association of american universities, the association of public and land grant universities, the business council for energy, the coalition for the national science funding. the stem education project and many others. i will put the full list of these organizations into the record at this time. i strongly, strongly oppose this bill. and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: i yield to mr. weber.
mr. weber: i thank chairman smith for me to speak on this important legislation on the floor today. the america competes re-authorization act of 2015 authorizes the programs at the department of energy providing funding for research and development conducted in our universities and national labs across the country. d.o.e. 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 research advanced computing, nuclear and fusion energy sciences. this basic r&d has broad applications for our economy and national security, providing tools and user facilities for
researchers in all energy fields. the american competes act also re-authorizes the department's energy programs, nuclear energy fossil energy renewable energy and electricity research and development. by prioritizing research and development in these programs, we can maximize federal dollars and leave deployment to the private sector, 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 priorities and duplicative programs which has grown by 60% 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 cannot afford to spend
federal dollars in promoting today's technology. that is so yesterday. instead of duplicating work that can be done in the private sector, the america competes prioritizes basic research and development with broad application to all forms of energy and energy efficiency. mr. chairman, over the past five months the science committee has held hearings for advance nuclear reactors, high performance computing, energy efficiency and renewable energy and the department of energy budget proposal. with limited time, this congress and this science committee and this congress has conducted five hearings in support of this legislation prioritizing oversight of the d.o.e. 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 new innovative technologies to the
market and grow the american economy. i urge my colleagues to support this america competes act and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady from texas is recognized. ms. johnson: i yield to ms. edwards. ms. edwards: it is 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 anti-science bill, h.r. 1806. when i first came into congress i was excited because we were actually working on re-authorizing 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. in fact, 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's a throw-back bill to the 20th century. these cuts are going to cripple our nation's research to generate, store and use energy and harm our ability to compete successfully with other countries. the bill contains many harmful provisions restricting the department of energy, such as a provision resulting in the results of any department of energy supported fossil fuel research and development from being used quote for regulatory assessments or determinations by federal regulatory authority. that would essentially bar, mr. chairman, the e.p.a. 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 anti-science bill also includes a misguided attempt to impose a level of political review on the national science foundation's gold standard merit review system. the national science foundation, not a political organization, a dangerous proposal -- ms. johnson: i would like toll yield an additional minute. ms. edwards: it would stifle the high risk outside the box thinking that has put the united states on the cutting edge of scientific research. if this bill would become law, it would eliminate sound research on climate change within the department of energy under the guise of a cost-cutting measure. isn't this what this is about? the other side not just believing in climate change
despite the science. the bill is dangerous. it does do and it lacks any substantive provisions in a number of areas. i proposed an amendment that would look at our 21 century work force by supporting research at minority hive serving ---serving institutions. it flat funds the education direct ate at the national science foundation. i can't think of anything more harmful and this is the most anticompetitive legislation that can be put on this floor. it is a danger to the 21 century and i yield. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise, the majority whip. mr. scalise: i thank my
colleague the chairman from texas, for yielding and his leadership in bringing the america competes act to the floor. i rise in strong support of the america competes act and if you look what we are trying to do here, we want america to maintain our competitive edge and create good paying jobs here at home, but we need to invest in basic scientific research. the government expanding programs, the competes act prioritizes taxpayer dollars to support basic research in biology chemistry, math and computer science. american taxpayer dollars are being spent on programs that do not meet the national interests that will invest in our future. i want to point out some of the wasteful spending that is being eliminated. 340,000 of taxpayer money is
being spent to study human set fires in new zealand in the 1800's, and study civil lawsuits in peru from 1600 to 1700. $487,000 to study textiles and gender in iceland from 874 to 1800. $697,000 for the great -- a musical about climate change. this is what taxpayer dollars are being spent on. and americans are looking to washington to tighten their belt. this refocuses what we are supposed to be doing to promote sciences. the things that are going to help american workers be successful. not all of this foolishness. it's a great bill that
prioritizes the taxpayer dollars of this country and i urge my colleagues to pass it and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from texas is recognized. ms. johnson: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for three minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. and mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the competes re-authorization act. it is an attempt to disinvest in research innovation and education at a time when we ought to be investing in those areas. this bill places our competitiveness at serious risk over the long-term. the public must be confused by both sides claiming that they are enhancing research. many interest groups disagree with our republican friends. i had hoped this year's
legislation would have been written so we could continue the tradition of strong bipartisan support it received in 2007 and 2010, overwhelmingly republicans voted for these bills initially and the re-authorization. unfortunately, the severe cuts and partisan policies precludes that from happening. republicans who wrote this legislation have decided that they know better than america's scientists and innovators. they pick and choose research programs they like at the expense of those they idealogically oppose. in other words, not pure review but political review and cut key areas of research far below the levels for fiscal year 2015, including the manufacturing extension partnership program and r&d for renewable energy technologies. how ironic we have a r&d bill on
the floor and cutting technology here. this bill would slash our investments on the cutting edge arpa-e program by 50% which funds high risk and high reward research in energy technologies that might not otherwise be pursued. of course, if global warming is not an issue, who cares. this bill though called the america competes act 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 outpacing us and how much they invest in science and technology research. along side this bill today, the house is considering a bill that tries to do something that many of us agree ought to be done, but it does not do it in a fiscally responsible way. i'm opposing and urging my
colleagues to oppose making the r&d credit permanent. not make our children and grandchildren pay for it. over and over and over again our republicans claim that the tax cuts that they are passing will for themselves. i came mere in 1981. that was the claim. under president reagan, we increased the debt 1889%. bush did better after the 2001 and zsh -- 1889%. bush did better and inclosed 87% or three times that increased under president clinton. and none of the tax cuts ended up paying for themselves. since the beginning of this congress, republicans have brought to the floor and passed nine tax cuts.
it's so easy to vote for tax cuts. it is so hard to pay for what we're buying. and that is why we have a deficit because we do not pay for what we buy. today, the house is being asked to vote on another unpaid for tax extender that on its own would increase the deficit by $1882 billion. that's a total of $5886 billion, over half a trillion dollars. . . we heard that it would benefit the economy. ms. johnson: one more minute. choid the gentleman is recognized. -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: i support the r&d if we pay for it. that's the principle that the
american public supports as well. that 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'm 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 and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. knight, an active member of the science, space and technology committee. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. knight: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to rise in support of the american competes act. i'd like to thank the chair for
his leadership in this field. today the federal government spends about $3 billion across stem education efforts. this bill creates new stem education advisory panel to provide feedback and advise the president and federal agencies with stem programs to better inform, plan and budget. stem efforts are to be coordinated across the federal government to limit duplication. industry also recognizes the benefits of stem. this is evidence by their 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. this started more than 10 years ago. when it started it was about 2% women or 2% girls. today it's over 40%. 40% of lancaster robotics team is girls working toward a stem degree, working for an engineering degree a mathematics degree, computer science degree. again, aerospace brings many of the highest paying, most technical jobs not just to my district but to this country. stem education is not just a buzz word, it's something that actually works. stem education is the lifeblood for what we do in 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 and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from texas is recognized. ms. johnson: thank you mr. chairman. i now yield three minutes to the gentleman from new york,
mr. tonko. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for three minutes. mr. tonko: thank you. and i thank the gentlelady from texas for yielding. mr. chair, i rise today in opposition to h.r. 1806 the america competes re-authorization act. the original competes act was visionary in its commitment to increased r&d funding, and i strongly believe that 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 committee, i had the opportunity to work on a truly bipartisan re-authorization of the competes. we worked together and chose to make certain that we innovate and remade certain that we would compete. this year i returned to the science committee excited to again work on a smart and targeted competes re-authorization. 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 will take us in the wrong direction. i am concerned by the majority's fixation on allocating funding for n.s.f. by directorate. this creates a dangerous precedent in denying n.s.f. adequate flexibility and instead places political whims ahead of the need to independently foster true innovative research. i'm also concerned by the effort to impose political review on n.s.f.'s gold standard merit review system. the scientific community in our nation and around the world agree that n.s.f.'s review system works and works very well. so why would we make it more difficult to encourage high
risk and high rewards of research? instead, we should be increasing research funding, providing n.s.f. 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 buzz words. it wants a real stem education effort. as a nation we are woefully underproducing scientists and engineers. in order to remain a global economic power in this 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's not a commitment to stem education. in practical terms it's a decrease in funding. i'm also concerned by the cuts in funding for the manufacturing extension partnership program, and by the strike in funding for the national networking for manufacturing innovation, or nnmi. these initiatives are smart
investments and opportunities for our nation to truly collaborate, to compete and to be cutting edge. this bill denies our american pioneer spirit. the bill also makes huge cuts -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. tonko: i thank the gentlelady. this bill also makes huge cuts to funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy research and development and well as fund fog arpa-e. a modern day needs reality and it is through smart investments in research and development. energy is essential to our economy and if we pull back resources and do in the 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, revenues 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, and i yield back the balance of my time. i thank the gentlelady. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: mr. chairman, this bill does not touch merit review, and i'll yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. babin, who is a valuable member of the science, space and technology committee. the chair: the gentleman from texas, mr. babin, is recognized for two minutes. mr. babin: thank you mr. chairman. i rise today in strong support of h.r. 1806, the america competes act. 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's 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 scientists basic research, advanced technologies and 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 n.s.f. 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. n.s.f. spent another $387,000 on a mechanical device that
stimulates 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%. saving taxpayers 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 reigned in and -- 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 and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from texas is recognized. ms. johnson: thank you, mr. chair. i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from massachusetts ms. clark.
the chair: the gentlelady from massachusetts is recognized for three minutes. ms. clark: thank you, mr. speaker. and thank you to the gentlelady 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 n.s.f. why? because it's 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 maintaining agriculture and in healthy soil. business leaders know that
extreme weather, like hurricanes droughts tornados 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's 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. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back her time. the gentlelady from texas reserves her time. the gentleman from texas mr. smith, is recognized. mr. smith: mr. chairman, on the way to yielding to a colleague from texas, i'd like to recognize myself for 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. smith: mr. speaker, as set forth in the report of the american competes act, n.s.f. 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 n.s.f. to fund low priorities like a survey of nor weekan tourism, teaching tv meteorologists about climate change and creating climate change video games. i'd like to yield three minutes to my colleague from texas, the
chairman of the homeland security committee, mr. mccaul. the chair: the gentleman from texas, mr. mccaul, is recognized for two minutes. mr. mccaul: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of re-authorization 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're actually able to increase funding for new promising research while keeping overall spending constant. this bill's designed to secure america's premiere 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 we're 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 markets faster, encouraging job creation and private sector investment. . it 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, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlelady from texas is recognized. ms. johnson: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. liu. mr. lieu: i rise to oppose the america competes act because it cuts funding to the hard science of studying the effects of climate change. this is not a partisan issue. we know our sea levels have risen by 6.7 inches in the last century and it affects not just democratic districts but also affects republican districts. we can measure with precision that we've had over 20 years of the hottest records and temperatures. in 2012, over 19 states broke
the hottest records in their states. and more extreme weather events, more weather uncertainty affects not just red states and blue states and purple states, it affects all of america. and that's why last month former reagan secretary of state wrote an op ed in the "washington post" saying climate change is happening and we need to take action on it and we need to ensure our future against climate change. he called it the reagan way and said that is what president reagan would have done. the funding for the hard science to study the effects of climate change was put in place under president bush in 2007. just today our president has announced what the military is saying. i served on active duty in the united states air force and one of the amazing strengths of america, it is nonpartisan and
military takes the world as it is. our military does not live in a fantasy world and they does -- do understand climate change is happening and a national security threat and telling the american public we need to act now because we can't have droughts and more severe weather events that causes conflicts. i ask the american public to trust former reagan secretary of state george schultz, trust president bush and our united states military. saying climate change is a problem and our military relies on the hard science and technology and all that makes this world possible. trust our military and trust everyone who has looked at it and please reject the america competes act because we need to deal with climate change and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas, mr. smith is recognized. mr. smith: i yield one minute to
the gentleman from michigan, mr. moolenaar and vice chairman of the research and technology subcommittee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. moolenaar: thank you for recognizing me, and mr. speaker, the america competes act is good legislation that will 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 every graduate between 2013 and 2023, there will be two jobs available. that's why programs in my districts like go i.t. offer free education to students to create awareness in computer science and other stem fields. this increases government accountability and requires the national science foundation grants to meet a national interest standard and to
publicly justify why they should receive taxpayer dollars. requiring government agencies to prioritize the national interests is common sense and enhances accountability to the american people. i'm proud to be a co-sponsor of the america competes act and i urge my colleagues to vote yes. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from texas. ms. johnson: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. smifflet smith we have no other speakers -- mr. smith: we have no other speakers on this side and we reserve. ms. johnson: we have no further requests for speaking. i just urge everyone to vote no on this bill. and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield myself such time as i may consume.
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle 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. the biology research at n.s.f. is a priority and stop using the taxpayer dollars to fund reviews of photos in "national geographic" magazine. we should not continue to spend taxpayer dollars on climate change musicals. we can set priorities, make tough choices and still invest more in breakthrough research and innovation of the i thank the members of the science committee who provided input into the america competes re-authorization act of 2015 and that includes the co-sponsors of
the bill, frank lucas, all of our subcommittee chairs as well as representative steve palazzo brian and joe moolenaar. i urge the adoption of this fiscally responsible bill. and before i yield back, mr. chairman i would like to enter into the exchange of letters between the committees on education and work force oversight and government reform and energy and commerce. the chair: the request will be granted by general leave. mr. smith: i yield back. the chair: all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee of science space and technology, it shall be in order to consider as an orange bill for purpose of
amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment consisting of the text of rules committee print 114-115. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part a. each such amendment may be offered in the order printed in the report, by a member designated in the report, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by a proponent and opponent. and shall not be subject to demand of division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number one. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. smith: i have an amendment made in order under the rule. the chair: the clerk will
designate the amendment. the clerk: printed in part a of house report 114-120. the chair: the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: this manager's amendment makes improvements to the underlying legislation. $48 million within the research and related activities account at the national science foundation this is request of commercial, justice and science subcommittee chairman and provides additional funding for integrated activities to keep it at the fiscal year level. it includes fellowships and the experiment call program which will be fully funded at this level. the amendment directs the department of energy to develop technologies to enhance security for electrical transmission and distribution systems. and the amendment includes additional direction on the
development of hubs, innovation institutes and research centers at the department of energy. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. johnson: ms. johnson: i rise to claim time in opposition although i do not oppose the amendment. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i appreciate this amendment makes a few small improfments to the bill so i will not oppose it. i want to reflect how this amendment demonstrates how flawed the process on the majority's bill has been. in this amendment, the chairman restores the arbitrary 11% cut to the corps program. the fellowship program, scientific instrumentation for
smaller institutions that cannot afford their own. even our colleagues on appropriations prioritize full funding for this account at n.s.f. while they make steep cuts to other accounts. it is represented by many more republicans than democrats. when the science committee republicans proposed cutting by 11%, their caucus took notice. if only the chairman had given the stakeholder community his colleagues and the research and development agencies an opportunity for a hearing or to see and respond and respond to this bill before introducing it, we wouldn't have had to fix all of these very big mistakes today. i'm glad the chairman is now restoring the cut and the other important programs in that account. i only wish he would have
listened to an overwhelming call by the stakeholder community and even some of his own colleagues to restore the other short sided cuts in this bill and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: we have no other speakers and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. ms. johnson: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. johnson: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part a of house report 114-120 offered by mrs.
johnson of texas. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas. ms. johnson: i thank mr. foster for his leadership on this important issue. section 106 simplifies the majority's efforts to improve their he own personal beliefs and ideologies on the process of scientific discovery. colleagues, science is not about beliefs. it is about discovery. and the pursuit of questions about both the natural world and the human world. we should hold n.s.f. accountable and n.s.f. should hold its granteys accountable. accountability should be measured according to the transparency and integrity of the great review process. not according to what types of science that some of us believe
in and some don't. had we imposed section 106 requirement on n.s.f. earlier they may have never funded the grant that led to billions in revenue from the spectrum auction. they may not have granted the grant that d.o.d. uses to help train our soldiers on the front line to differentiate between friend and foe. they may never have funded the grant that led to the creation of google. chairman smith has been investigating n.s.f. grants he doesn't like since he became chairman of this committee. the entire purpose of section 106 is to give him a bigger club to continue his unfounded investigations into the future. this is bad for n.s.f. and worse for the u.s. leadership in science and innovation. i urge my colleagues to think long and hard about consequences of imposing our own political
view and review on n.s.f. gold standard scientific merit review process and i urge support of mr. foster's amendment. i continue to reserve. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. smith: -- the chair: the gentleman veppingd for five minutes. mr. smith: it's unconceivable to me that any u.s. representative to oppose requiring government grants funded by the u.s. taxpayer to be spent in the national interest. throughout its history the national science foundation has played an integral part in funding great discoveries in fields as diverse as mathematics, physics, chemistry, computer science, engineering, and biology. n.s.f. has approved a number of grants which the scientific merits and national interest are not obvious to put it politely.
these include a climate change musical costing $800,000. evaluating animal photographs in national geographic at least $200,000. and studying early human set fires in new zealand in the 1800's for several hundred thousand dollars. the section this amendment strikes ensures that n.s.f. is transparent and accountable to the taxpayers about how their hard-earned dollars are spent. the bill requires that every n.s.f. public announcement of a grant award be accompanied by a nontechnical explanation of the project scientific merits and how it serves the national interest. n.s.f. itself has recognized the need for this transparency and accountability. last january, n.s.f. released a new policy that acknowledges that n.s.f. must communicate clearly and nontechnical terms the research project it funds. the policy emphasizes the title for each funded grant should
explain how the project serves the national interest. a requirement first cited in the 1950 legislation that created the national science foundation. again, the national interest standard that the gentleman -- the joment -- in just a moment texas opposes was in the n.s.f. first charter. the current director herself has endorsed the national interest standard. in her testimony before the house science committee on february 25 n.s.f. director spoke about the very section that the gentlewoman seeks to eliminate. dr. car dovea said it is compatible with the new internal n.s.f. guidelines and the mission statement of n.s.f. the national standard does not interfere with any merit review process. the bill clearly states nothing in this section shall be construed as altering the foundation's intellectual merit or broader impact criteria for evaluating grant applications. so i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and
support the underlying legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentlelady from texas is recognized. ms. johnson: thank you, mr. chairman. i now yield such time he may consume the gentleman from illinois, dr. fothser -- foster physicist. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for such time he wishes to consume. mr. foster: thank you, mr. chair. my amendment would strike -- which i understood has been introduced has -- would strike section 106 of the bill which in my view adds a dangerous political filter to n.s.f.'s gold standard merit review process. i do not stand alone in this view. the overwhelming majority of my colleagues in the scientific community are still quite uncomfortable with the language that would at the american society of microbiology stated quote, have an adverse impact on
the n.s.f. process which is essential to funding mare torial research. all of us here want to be good stewards of taxpayer money. this is also true of the national science foundation who currently already requires the n.s.f. public award abstract consistent of nontechnical component which will include, quote a public justification for n.s.f. funding by articulating how the project serves the national interest. as stated by n.s.f.'s mission torques promote the progress of science, to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare, or to secure the national defense. as the biophysical society has pointed out, quote, n.s.f. has committed to offering a public -- the public a better understanding of a research project's intent which will satisfy the section's objective. this -- the whole intent of this mystifies me a little bit. i serve on two committees, the financial services committee and the science committee.
the financial servicings committee there is a steady drumbeat of republican proposals to remove dume a dumetuss and redundant requirements that waste nching's time. it seems to me that section 10 is exactly along this line. and while it may just seem innocuous waste of time to some we know that for the past two years scientist vs. had their projects targeted as potentially wasteful or not, quote, national interest, unquote often based on nothing but their titles. not only is this wrong, it's blatantly political. it's easy to make cheap shots here. my parents actually both worked for senator bill proxmire who was from years and years did the golden fleece awards. he was a wonderful and thoughtful senator, but in this one he consistently missed the mark. it's easy to make fun of projects with funny sounding names or strange topics but the
n.s.f. is the gold standard for a reason. take for example anthropolgist dr. scott who received funding from the n.s.f. in 1994 for a study that was entitled, local ecolocal knowledge of the common pool resources. he subsequently applied what he learned to questions of extremism in the middle east. and is now a key national expert on countering extremism in the middle east valued as a consultant to the department of defense and department of state. the chair: choir. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: we are prepared to close. the chair: would you repeat yourself. would the gentleman from texas repeat what he just said. mr. smith: we are prepared to close so i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas has the only time
remaining. the gentlelady from texas has no time remaining. so you're recognized, the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i will on the way to recognizing the gentleman from illinois, simply say to the other gentleman from illinois, mr. foster, that i recognize and appreciate him. he is a smart, thoughtful and well motivated member of the science committee. so i'm really sorry he opposes this national interest standard that i think is the right thing to do for america. and for american taxpayers. i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from illinois mr. lipinski, who is a very active and talented member of the science space, and technology committee. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for the balance of the time so the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. lipinski: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to commend my good friend from illinois for his strong commitment to advocating for scientific research. i share many of his concerns
about the underlying bill. i will be voting against this bill. however i must oppose this amendment. i agree with mr. foster and i disagree with the chairman on some of the attacks on what his -- some past grants that have been granted by the n.s.f. i think section 10 helps to avoid that. now, the -- 106 helps to avoid that. now the first was the high quality research act unveiled nearly two years ago. i strongly opposed that as did the vast majority of the research community. through a series of discussions the current language vastly different and improved from the original was reached. with a broad definition of national interest that does not do anything to undermine the gold standard n.s.f. pier review system. i vinet everyone to read the section for themselves or simply listen to the n.s.f. as the chairman said n.s.f. director
stated her support for section 106 at a committee hearing in february saying it is very compatible with the new n.s.f. internal guidelines and mission statement of n.s.f. i applaud for these new glines which explains the public why each proposal is being funded and how it is in the national interest. this will help the n.s.f. defend worthwhile grants that are attacked by critics who sometimes misrepresent projects. in doing so, it will also project the n.s.f. while i agree with my friend on almost everything, i must reluctantly oppose this amendment. i wish we could have been able to work out a competes bill we could all support, but regrettably we did not. let's not throw out this
language that was worked out and will help the n.s.f. to spend its peer review process. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas, so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in part a of house report 114-120. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in part a of house report number 114-120, offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 271, the gentlewoman from texas ms. jackson lee, and
a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: i thank the chair very much. let me take a moment to thank both my fellow texans and to acknowledge i know that there is a difference of opinion, but no one can disagree with the crucialness of america's competitiveness and the necessity for creating a work force that can compete. allow me to acknowledge congresswoman johnson for the steadfast commitment and service to the science committee and the privilege of serving with her on the early stages of my membership here in this august body, and i want to thank her personally for the great strides and sick sess that is she's had in expanding opportunities for the most vulnerable in our community. so my amendment speaks to this issue and it continues to seek to address the stem education gap for k through 12 students.
the jackson lee amendment number 3 creates state and regional workshops betraying k to 12 teachers in project science and project learning which would allow them to provide instruction in initiating robotics and other stem competition team development programs. i now serve on the homeland security committee, mr. chairman, and i note that the extent of technology in securing this nation is without comparison. it is necessary. it is crucial. and this amendment also leverages the collaboration among higher education businesses local and private public education agencies to support tell efforts at schools located in areas with unemployment it is 1% or more above the national rate. we want to get right to the core of the most vulnerable and most needy students. robotic competitions and other similar competitive opportunities are proven to be one of the most successful paths for engaging young minds in stem education. i have held a robotics competition and it is absolutely
amazing to see the young people's minds and hearts gather around it. my amendment has that capacity to it. and of course, it responds to only one out of 10 high schools in the us us offer computer science programs, and it's estimated that the education system in 25 states do not count computer science classes toward a high school graduation. i'd like to ask my colleagues to support the jackson lee amendment and i'd like to reserve my time. the chair: the gentlelady from texas reserves her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. smith: i claim the time in opposition to the amendment though do i not oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. smith: mr. chairman, this amendment would include teacher training for stem competitions and collaborations as permitted activities under a program in the bill to encourage engagement in stem education activities. reporting out of school activities like competitions is consistent with the underlying bill. i accept the gentlewoman from's
amendment. the chair: does the gentleman yield back? mr. smith: i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: 2 1/2 minutes. ms. jackson lee: thank you. mr. chairman, i want to focus a little bit regarding this amendment on competitions. competitions such as first, a national robotics competition that engages 400,000 students each year and awards millions of dollars in scholarships are paving the way for future stem success. i might ask unanimous consent to place in the record the disparities in sex and employment and hispanic originalian. the chair: the request will be covered by general leave. ms. jackson lee: specifically, the industry, government academic leaders citing the engineering and math and work force as a top concern. this is an american community survey reports. one area has been to reduce disparates in stem employment by sex, race, and hispanic origin. historically women blacks, and hispanics have been underrepresented in stem employment and it goes on to elaborate.
but this amendment gives an added opportunity for to focus in, to horn in on teacher training and reaching out to those very hungry minds in the minority communities who are eager to be part of the changing fabric of america that focuses on science, throg, and engineering, and math. from financial services to homeland security to space and aeronautics, to manufacturing, to the silicon valleys of the nation, stem is crucial. so i ask my colleagues to support the jackson lee amendment and i'd like to now acknowledge the staff of both committee staff on the majority and minority who assisted us. i'd like to acknowledge my staff, lili, for excellent work on these matters. with that, mr. chairman, i ask for support of the jackson lee amendment and i yield back. . the chair: question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from texas.
those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in part a house report 114-120. for what purpose does the gentlelady from connecticut seek recognition? ms. esty: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in part a of house report 114-120 offered by ms. esty of connecticut. the chair: the gentlelady from connecticut and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from connecticut. ms. esty: thank you mr. chairman. my amendment would increase support for women and entrepreneurship at the national science foundation innovation corps known as the i corps. it has been an honor and privilege to meet with women across connecticut who are creating and building their own startups and small businesses.
in march i hosted a women in science, technology bringing together educators innovators and business owners to identify barriers women face looking to advance in the stem fields. these local leaders agreed that one of the biggest problems for women is the lack of mentorship and support and quite simply, women do not have the same support because they are often the first women in leadership positions in their field. in fact, our smaller manufacturers' association in connecticut just elected their first female president and she has hit the ground running to build on our state's strong manufacturing tradition. national studies and experts echo the concerns women raised at the stem round table in my own district. the kaufman foundation recently surveyed 350 female startup tech
founders and found the number one shared concern is a lack of role models and meantors for women thinking of going into business for themselves. and recent news reports have noted the chronic underrepresentation of women in the booming tech sector including startups. in fact, women make up only 30% of the tech work force and 22% of the leadership roles despite being 60% of the work force. it's clear that we must do more for women so they can build businesses and create good paying jobs. my amendment would provide that support to women through the i corps by expanding their mission to specifically include support for and investment in female entrepreneurs through mentorship education and training. the i corps program fosters entrepreneurship by giving students the tools they need to move technology from the research lab to the market.
i corps is making a difference in helping teach and support entrepreneurs across the country. in my own state the university of connecticut received i corps funding and it's designated as an i corps state. it will build on the investment that the state of connecticut is making to ensure they remain a leader. our competitiveness as a nation depends on robust research and technology and on ensuring that we draw on the best and the brightest whether they be men or women. by increasing the number of women entrepreneurs in the fields of science technology, engineering and math, we as a nation will all benefit from the innovation that comes from a diverse work force. it is not only morally right but to foster entrepreneurship of women. i encourage colleagues to support my amendment. the chair: the gentlelady from connecticut reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek
recognition? mr. smith: i claim time in opposition, although i don't oppose the amendment. this would add a sense of congress' support for the n.s.f. innovation corps program in the underlying bill. this language would include the investments and support for female entrepreneurs. i corps is an excellent program and i support the gentlewoman's amendment and appreciate her offering it. and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from connecticut is recognized. the gentlelady from connecticut has two minutes remaining. ms. esty: i yield time to my friend from virginia, mr. beyer. a minute and a half. mr. beyer: thank you, mr. chairman and i thank my friend for yielding and i enjoy being
on the same side of this issue. i would like to add my voice to representative esty's voice. i corps is a revolutionary partnership that maximizes the economic impact by connecting the brilliant minds from n.s.f. and the private sector. this ensures that we foster all of the brilliant minds by supporting female entrepreneurs. gender diversity makes good business sense. it was found that twice the number of women are on founding teams and women-owned firms outperform those owned by male counterparts. despite the fact that women earn more college degrees and only comprise 5% of corporate c.e.o.'s. for us to realize our economic potential, we have to do a better job of supporting female entrepreneurs and i support her
amendment and i urge my colleagues to do the same. thank you, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from connecticut reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i'm not going to disagree what the the gentlewoman from connecticut has said. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from connecticut. ms. esty: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: you have one minute remaining. ms. esty: i yield my time and thanks to the ranking member, representative johnson. the chair: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for one minute. ms. johnson: i rise in support of this amendment and want to thank the author for bringing it forth and thank the chairman of the committee. our support goes to congresswoman morella that did the study 15, 16 years ago and
been supportive of women in the sciences and hope that we can get a better bill so we can address getting them ready for these jobs. thank you very much. i yield back. the chair: does the gentlelady yield back? ms. esty: yes. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from connecticut. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition. mr. crowley: i have an amendment at the desk. mr. crowley: amendment number 5 printed in part a of house report 114-120 offered by mr. crowley of new york. the chair: the gentleman from new york, mr. crowley, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. crowley: i yield myself a
minute and a half. eight years ago when the house first considered the america competes act i offered an amendment with gabby giffords as well as congressman mcnerney to correct a long standing inequity. hispanic-serving institution have not benefited from a specific program at the n.s.f. to provide grants for curriculum. the amendment corrected this inequity and to create a separate program. and it was adopted and became law. to this day, the n.s.f. has not implemented the program. this bipartisan amendment would correct that and require the h.s.i. program to finally be implemented within four months of the enactment of this measure. hispanic-serving institution
serve two million. 10,000 students attend institutions offering degrees in these fields of science. without access to targeted grants h.s.i.'s have difficulty increasing the ranks of latinos in the stem fields. we must ensure the youngest and fastest ethnic group in our nation are prepared with the knowledge and skills to contribute our economic strength and security and global leadership. because when education is available to everyone our entire nation is stronger. i thank my colleagues for working with me. and the co-sponsors of this amendment, i thank them. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. smith: i claim the time in opposition although i do not
oppose. this amendment would require n.s.f. to establish a program originally authorized in the original competes act. i support the amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. crowley: i appreciate the comments from the chairman. but i would like to yield a minute to my friend, mr. serrano one minute. the chair: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. serrano: i thank my colleague, as my colleague has said in 2007, he added a provision to the original america competes act to give the n.s.f. to establish a dedicated grant program. after years of persistence, the n.s.f. has refused to act. that's why last month we introduced the hopes act. today's amendment republically indicates the hopes act and
requires the n.s.f. to establish an undergrauth grant program for hispanic serving institutions. they are underrepresented in the stem fields and more needs to ensure we are not missing the best and the brightest in developing the next generation of scientists, engineers. this amendment is a big step in the right direction and i thank representative crowley for his leadership on this issue. i thank the chairman for accepting the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york reserves his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield two minutes to my colleague from texas. mr. hurd: i rise in support of this amendment that will benefit students in the 23rd congressional district of texas. one thing that everybody here wants is a healthy economy. we want the economy to be the strongest in the world. if american businesses are going to compete and win in a global
economy, we have to have the best trained and best equipped work force possible. this means our institutions of higher learning need to be fully capable of offering students to have the skills to go into a 21 century economy and that means stem degrees. this amendment will allow institutions that are designated as hispanic-serving institutions to have access to grant programs with the national science foundation that they have been limited from participating in the past. there are 47 institutions like this in the state of texas and more than a dozen serve students in my district. this will increase recruitment retention and graduation rates. that's good for these students, good for our universities, our communities, our businesses and economy. i want to thank the gentleman from new york, mr. crowley, for introducing this amendment and i encourage my colleagues to support it. the chair: the gentleman yields
back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas reserves his time and the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. crowley: i want the record to reflect and expecting to be yielding you a minute. thank you for yielding two minutes and i yield a minute to my friend. >> mr. chairman, i rise in support of this amendment that i'm proud to offer with my colleagues and i want to thank congressman crowley for his leadership. i want to recognize chairman smith for his responsibility and working and looking out for these students as well. in today's world it creates high-paying jobs and still struggling with high unemployment. especially in stem. having difficulty finding qualified workers. to help meet this demand the national science foundation
manages programs at minority-serving institution and tribal colleges and universities. these programs fill an important void by preparing students for meaningful careers in stem. however, there is no such program and therefore a lack of critical support for hispanic-americans. and hispanics are severely underrepresented. it is time to fund the creation of a program to develop infrastructure curriculum and recruit hispanic students to the stem field. to do what is about best for america. we need to promote these programs. . . the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i'm prepared to yield back. the chair: the gentleman yield bass -- back. mr. smith: i yield back. mr. crowley: how much time do i have left? the chair: the gentleman from new york has a minute and a half remaining. mr. crowley: i yield a minute to the gentlelady from texas.
the chair: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for one minute. ms. johnson: let me thank the gentleman. and all of the persons who sponsored this amendment. i want to commend them. when mr. lujan was on the science committee, we actually developed that language that did pass and then last competes act. so i fully support this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. crowley: thank you, mr. chairman. let me use the remaining time to thank chairman smith for his cooperation his staff, as well as ms. johnson's staff and her cooperation. i do think this amendment is the final tooth we need to make this law work. and to drive the money and the resources to people we intended for them to go to that is latino, hispanic young men and women who want to strive to succeed in the fields of science
and medicine. to help make our country and even better country. so i thank you both again for your cooperation and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it's now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in part a house report 114-120 for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. griffith: i have meask. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6, printed in part a of house report number 114-120 offered by mr. griffith of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 271 the gentleman from virginia, mr. griffith, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. griffith: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendments would make a couple of slight changes to two new advisory boards created in this bill. the stem education advisory panel and a new department of energy advisory committee.
my amendment sets the total number of members for these two new advisory boards at 15 each, and most importantly ensures that five members on each board are chosen by congress. three by the senate -- speaker of the house and two by the senate majority leader. the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the advisory boards have congressional representation. that we have people on there who work with congress. the legislative branch is a co-equal branch of government and i believe that has an institution congress should more aggressively assert itself as a co-equal branch. this amendment has nothing to do with which party controls the legislative branch of government or which party for that matter controls the executive branch at any given time. nor does it ask for a majority of the members of these new boards to be congressionally appointed. the amendment would simply ensure that the legislative branch is involved in these boards that it, the legislative branch, is creating and that we are involved in the process of creating that our folks are involved in the process of creating the reports which both the legislative branch and the
executive branch will rely on to make important decisions for these unstates. if congress deems it an on enough issue to warrant an advisory board included in bail that we are passing, it makes sense we also appoint a portion of that board's membership. i hope we'll do this as we go forward with many of our boards. i also think it will facilitate more conversation between the executive branch and the legislative branch as time goes nord. -- forward. with that said i reserve the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? ms. johnson: i rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for five minutes. ms. johnson: thank you. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for as much time as she wishes to use. ms. johnson: this amendment allows the speaker of the house of representatives and majority leader of the senate to appoint members to two scientific
advisory boards created in the bill. this amendment is the very definition of politicalizing science when we have politicians choosing who sits on scientific advisory boards. while my colleagues across the aisle suggest this amendment ensures accountability, in reality it is only ensures the political meddling in science. unfortunately, this is consistent with many provisions in this underlying bill. scientific advisory boards provide expert scientific advice and make recommendations on subject matter from stem education to energy research and development. it is essential that advisory board members be qualified, none political, to provide nonpartisan advice and give appropriate recommendations that are free of bias. advice and recommendations based on the best available evidence. advice and recommendations that
will be further -- will further science not inhibit it. in this rammed, the speaker of the house -- amendment, the speak of the house would appoint three members, while the majority leader of the senate would appoint two additional members to this advisory board. some of these advisory boards have only 15 members. this amendment would allow republican and only republican leaders of congress to appoint 1/3 of these members. this amendment is clearly meant to politicize these advisory boards. while the response of this amendment is messaging it as giving congress a bigger voice that is just not accurate. ask for or necessary. congress already has the biggest and final voice. we control the federal budget. congress writes authorization bills such as the one before us today. we do not lack influence.
let's stop our scientific advisory boards and keep them free of political interference. if we choose to ignore the advice of our scientific advisory boards as we are doing with h.r. 1806, that is our right. congress doesn't also have to put its fingerprints directly on the advice itself. this amendment -- we know about what's been said today that we are trying to take over the responsibility on this bill that i am against. so that's one way you can do it. this amendment follows the underlying attack on science in this bill but this amendment goes further. it gives the republican politicians a chance to directly influence the scientific process in our country. and i urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and the underlying bill. i thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from texas yields back her time.
the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. griffith: thank you, i feel so bad the gentlelady thinks this is politicizing this bifment that is the furthest thing from my intent. i know the gentlelady does not know me and she does not know for 17 years i served in the virginia house of delegates. in virginia any time we created a board or a policy advisory group like this, we generally had legislative members on there. what we found when we did that was when an idea came from the administrative branch, whether it was of the party i was in or different party, we generally found that by having people that were familiar with both sides of the issue, but people who also relied on and came to talk to us on a regular basis in the legislature, we felt more comfortable with those recommendations that had been made. we understood better what the background was. it made for better government. that's what this is intended to do. i didn't ask for a majority.
i didn't say that congress should have complete control. it just says there ought to be some members appointed by the senate appointed by the house. it doesn't matter which party is in the control of the house and senate. recently that was divided. doesn't matter which party is in the executive branch. it just says this is a way to make sure that when you think it's important enough, when congress thinks it's important enough to create an advisory board, that we both have some members, both the house and senate, have some members on that advisory board to make sure that there is interaction with us as well as with the executive branch. unless the belief is that the executive branch, whomever the president is unless the belief is is that the executive branch wants to politicize it because they get all the appointments, i don't know why they would think these appointments would be politicizing it it's for informational purposes and make sure everybody's heard that he table and those ideas are frequent. i yield. ms. johnson: i served in both
house and senate in texas before coming here. i believe strongly in input. but this very bill in its structure has become so political and so politically tainted in attempting to manipulate what's going on in our agencies, i just don't trust your amendment. thank you. mr. griffith: taking back my time. i would say i don't know the lady's concerns on this particular bill. i do believe as a congress we ought to be working to make sure that we have input on all these advisory committees, whether it's on this bill or any other bill. and with that, mr. chairman, i reserve the remainder of my time. if you could advise me how much that is i appreciate it. the chair: the gentleman from virginia has the remaining time. one minute. mr. griffith: i yield one minute to mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for the remainder of the time, which is one minute. mr. smith: thank you, mr.
chairman. i thank the gentleman from virginia for yielding. i'll be very brief which is that i support his amendment. which will ensure that congress has input on the composition of the new boards and panels created in the bill. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment as well. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from virginia. mr. griffith: yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? ms. johnson: i request a recorded vote. the chair: friction, further proceedings -- pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 7 print in part a of house report 114-120 for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. kelly: i have an amendment at the desk i the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7, printed in part a of house
report number 114-120, offered by mr. kelly of pennsylvania. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 271, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. kelly, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. kelly: i thank the chair. my amendment increases the authorized funding for the manufacture extension partnerpship by $5 million and it offsets it by decreasing the authorized funding level for the office of energy efficiency and renewable energy. if our goal is to create and retain more american jobs, there is no better program to fund that than the manufacturing extension partnership. administered by the national institutes of standards and technology with centers in every single state for every $1 of federal investment, this public-private partnership generates nearly $21 in new sales. as a result, this translates into $2.5 billion annually. and for every $2001 of federal
investment, m.e.p. creates one american manufacturing job. the program provides our nation's nearly 350,000 small manufacturers with services and access to resource that is enhance growth, improve productivity, and expand capacity. this program is a win-win for our hardworking american taxpayers. few, if any other federal programs, can claim such a good return on our taxpayers' investment. considering this amendment authorizes the program at $130 million that helps small american manufacturers directly, and 50% cost share, this gives taxpayers more bang for their buck. the office of energy efficiency and renewable energy has a total budget of over $1 billion. so moving $5 million to this valuable program for small businesses is simply good economic policy. this program is not a government handout. instead it requires small manufacturers who partner with their local m.e.p. to have skin in the game with a 50% cost share.
that's good for our taxpayers, it's good for manufacturing sectors, and it's good for american jobs. since 1988, m.e.p. has worked with nearly 80,000 american manufacturers leading to $ 8 billion in sales and $14 billion in cost savings. it has helped create more than $729,000 american jobs. last year alone m.e.p. projects created or retained nearly 64000 american jobs. generated more than $6.7 billion in new and retained sales and provided cost savings of more than $1.1 billion to small american manufacturers. the average small american -- the average small and mid-sized american manufacturing employee earning more than $7pp000 a year these are the types of jobs that policymakers need to be encouraging. at a time when our economy is starting to recover, the m.e.p.'s work is crucial in
helping america's small manufacturers be stronger long-term competitors both domestically and internationally. in turn this will allow them to create good-paying, high-skilled jobs for americans workers across the country. a growing manufacturing sector in america means more well-paying jobs for low to moderate income american fams, reduce trade deficit and a robust economy and flourishing innovation sector which can drive future growth. by supporting this amendment, congress will be sending a clear signal to our small american manufacturers and job creators that they will continue to play a vital role in the reinvigoration of our economy. m.e.p. is currently appropriated at $130 million and this amendment will simply ensure that this popular bipartisan program continues to be authorized at its current funding level. thank you. i yield back. . the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the
gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. johnson: i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. johnson: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i strongly support manufacturing extension partnership programs or the m.e.p.. since the establishment in 1988, the m.e.p. program has generated billions in new sales. it has saved clients billions of dollars and helped create more than 700,000 jobs. however, i cannot support this amendment because it increases the authorization for m.e.p. by decreasing the office of energy efficiency and renewable energy. there is important research on energy technologies including
advanced manufacturing initiatives. unfortunately, it has become a favorite target from our friends on the other side of the aisle. the underlying bill cuts this office by almost 30%. and this amendment would make that cut even larger. i support an amendment that would have increased m.e.p. authorization to $141 million for fiscal year 2016 at the president's request, but the amendment was not made in order. i strongly believe in m.e.p. and want to see this funding level increase. i think it is important to note that this bill is an authorization bill and not an appropriations bill. an authorization bills, congress should be deciding authorization levels by determining what the program needs to accomplish its responsibilities. notwithstanding republican
protocols. authorization bills should not have the same constraint as appropriation bills, including needing to offset any increases. this is a bizarre approach to legislating. because of the unnecessary cut, i cannot support this amendment and i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject the false notion of needing to offset authorizations. thank you. i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady from texas reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. kelly: i would like to yield 30 seconds to the chairman from texas. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i thank the gentleman from pennsylvania for yielding me his time and i just want to say i believe his amendment restores current funding levels of the manufacturing extension program at the national institutes of standards and technology while offsetting those costs and it's a great amendment and i urge my
colleagues to support it. the chair: the gentlelady from texas. ms. johnson: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentlelady from texas reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. kelly: i would just remark, if we are trying to create jobs and boost our economy and trying to do all these things and help small manufacturers, i don't think that asking to transfer $5 million out of a $1 billion allotment isn't going to have much an effect. this is looking forward to the future and saying we have to move this forward. this isn't a handout but a 50% match. very few programs in our government that require that. this makes sense for america. it makes sense for all those folks that i represent and you represent back home. i got to tell you something. back in western pennsylvania
where i live every morning, moms and dads get up and throw their feet out over the bed and go to work so they can put a roof over their head, food on the table clothes on their back and this is a small investment and keeping it at $130 million in a government that spends trillions of dollars every year. i don't know why we are quibbling over this and it will allow us to compete in a way that we actually win. we don't have to get political about this. i want to think about all the people we represent and where those dollars go. because every dollar belongs to the american taxpayer. the chair: the gentleman should address his comments to the chair and not to members of the house. ms. johnson: i appreciate those remarks. he is describing my constituents as well. and if we had done as requested by the president, we would have
left the authorization levels at the level he is trying to bring it and would not have taken away from the other part of the research that is so badly needed in other areas. i do not oppose what he is trying to do. what i oppose is how he is trying to do it. i still oppose the total amendment because it is not treating the other programs fairly. it is not that i oppose m.e.p. my constituents are no different than yours. they get up every day to work hard and meet opportunity. i'm sure many of yours get more opportunity than mine. i gee with that totally. i agreed with the president's level of recommendation of where he wants to take it. what i disagree with is he is taking out of another area. we are not appropriations. we are to recommend authorizations. we can do the authorization for
his level without taking away. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. members are advised to address their comments to the chair and not to each other. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. now in order to consider amendment number 8 printed in part a house report 114-120. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mrs. lowey: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in house report part a. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 271 the gentleman from california, mr. lowenthal and a member opposed, each will
control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mrs. lowey: i yield myself such time as i -- mr. lowenthal: i yield myself such time as i wish to consume. my amendment would do two important things. it would preserve the energy department's to select projects based on merit and preserve a basic tenet, to replicate scientific results. right now the underlying bill mandates the priorityization of certain scientific fields over others and terminates science initiatives that can validate or question the results of previous scientific research. it is additionally unfortunate that this formerly bipartisan bill the majority is again attempting to specifically target and terminate the valuable research programs of some of our nation's brightest
sciencists if they study climate change. i think this is short sided and it's irresponsible and i believe it is wrong. in order to ensure america's energy security, we must understand the multiplying risks to our energy infrastructure due to a changing climate. in order to ensure america's energy security we must understand the life cycle impacts of the fuels we use. and in order to ensure america's energy security, we must lead the world in developing clean renewable sources of energy. for this vision to become a reality, the department of energy must support sound scientific processes that includes selecting the most meritorious methods and questions that they wish to research and verifying those results through republically occasion. h.r. 1806 as it is currently
written specifically targets the climate research change program and instructs the director to seek quotes those climate science-related initiatives that are identified as overlapping or duplicative. a basic tenet is you have to produce scientific results. you don't go to the world and say we figured it out. no science requires separate and independently verified results in order to draw conclusions. but now congress is trying to legislate changes to the scientific method and i think that's a shame. science works best when multiple groups and agencies collaborate to find answers to important questions. and guess what? congress has already created a way to coordinate among the 13 federal agencies to ensure that each agency is researching the causes and effects of global
changes most relevant to their missions and it's called the u.s. global change research program. the proposed requirements in section 0 -- 505 are really just an amendment to create more rod blocks to studying climate change. my amendment present serves the scientific integrity of the office of science, u.s. global change research program and more importantly the scientific process. i urge a yes vote on the lowenthal amendment and reserves. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. smith: i claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. smith: i yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from arkansas. mr. westerman: i rise in
opposition to the gentleman's amendment and in support of the underlying reforms included in h.r. 1806. this amendment would remove important measures that ensure greater transparency for the federal government's initiative and require accountability for the office of science to justify the value of related work going forward. the gentleman's amendment would remove underlying language in the america competes act that would require the government accountability office to identify duplicative initiatives across the entire federal government. all members of congress should support transparency and federally-funded research. it is our core responsibility to provide federal oversight for federal programs and make sure american taxpayer dollars are being spent responsibly and not duplicating work. the language in the america competes act does not ban any particular area of science but
requires that d.o.d. justify the science and provide greater transparency if climate science is intentionally duplicated. this provision in the america competes act is good governance and more important now than ever. the obama administration has pushed forward a climate agenda prioritizing climate change research above all else. better transparency can help prevent wasteful spending and prioritize the most valuable research. house resolution 1806 authorizes the office of science to support basic research in the physical sciences, including research on the earth's atmosphere. by including these good government measures, the america competes act gives congress oversight, funds valuable research but does not provide a blank check for the president's climate agenda. this amendment would strike
these important accountability measures from the america competes act research. i oppose the amendment and encourage my colleagues to do the same. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. lowenthal: can you tell me how much time i have left? the chair: the gentleman from california has a minute and a half. mr. lowenthal: i yield 60 seconds to the gentlelady from texas. ms. johnson: thank you. and i thank the gentleman for yielding. it is not surprising that the environmental research program at d.o.e. are targeted. it is targeted because the program is a leader in advancing of causes and impacts of climate change. hiding our heads in the sand will not solve anything and certainly won't stop the earth from warming. allowing partisan politics to skew the scientific
understanding of climate change is cynical and shortsighted. it is especially cynical considering it is the majority's own bill that states that climate change is happening. they took the statement out, that is caused by human beings. my friend's amendment would strike those harmful provisions so that scientists supported can continue the important work without political interference. i urge my colleagues to support this important amendment. and i yield back. . mr. smith: i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. lowenthal: thank you, mr. chair. i repeat, duplication is good science. let me repeat that, duplication is good science. i urge a yes vote on the lowenthal amendment to maintain the department of energy's ability to select scientific
projects based upon scientific merit that support the mission of the department of energy and the broader energy security of our country. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. chairman, the amendment would strike good government accountability measure within the competes bill that requires d.o.e.'s office of science to prioritize biological systems and genomic science and would strike reforms included in the america competes act that prevent duplication of research and save taxpayers dollars. i encourage members to oppose the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california, mr. lowenthal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from california. mr. lowenthal: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed.
tuss now in order to consider amendment -- it is now in order to consider amendment number 9 printed in part a of house report 114-119. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. grayson: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 offered by mr. grayson of florida. the chair: pursuant to house 271, the gentleman from florida, mr. grayson, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. grayson: hubs are collaborative research centers that bring together scientists and engineers from academia,
national laboratories in order to accelerate scientific discoveries. they were created in 2010 and received almost half a billion dollars. the four hubs currently focus everything on improving nuclear reactors through computer-based modeling to improving battery technology for transportation and the grid. the amendment before us would not only authorize this important research but would also provide critical guidelines and accountability measures for the program. a rigorous merits-based renewal process would be implemented. the secretary would be imperative to terminate underperforming hubs at anytime and funds would be prohibited for the purpose of constructing buildings so that every taxpayer dollar goes to the research for which it is intended. mr. chairman, again, thank you for your help in and guidance in help developing this amendment and i urge my colleagues to support it. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. smith: mr. chairman, i
claim the time in opposition to the amendment though i do not oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. smith: mr. chairman, this amendment would authorize the department of energy innovation hubs. these integrated research platforms conduct fundamental research to address critical challenges in energy technology. currently d.o.e. operates four hubs which all focus on critical energy issues. they include the consortium of light water reactors which uses high performance comp take modeling to assimilate and improve it and research which focuses on developing the next generation of battery technologies. my thanks go to mr. grayson, a very active and alert member of the science committee for offering this amendment and for working with us to develop this bipartisan amendment. i encourage members to support it and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. grayson: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: yields back his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield back the balance of my time as well.
the chair: yields back his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 10 printed in part a of house report 114-120. for what purpose does the gentlelady from oregon seek recognition? ms. bonamici: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10 printed in part a of house report 114-120 offered by ms. bonamici of oregon. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 271 the gentlewoman from oregon, ms. bonamici, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from oregon. ms. bonamici: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for as much time as she wishes to use. ms. bonamici: i rise today to
address an issue of national security. the department of defense is the world's largest institutional consumer of fuel. as a result, the volatility of oil prices directly affects military readiness. every $10 increase on a barrel of oil costs the department of defense an additional $1.3 billion a year. to reduce our military's and our nation's dependence on a single source of fuel, the departments of defense, energy and agriculture have been working closely over the last four years with the private sector to scale up and advanced dropped in biofuel production capability. one of those projects is in lake view oregon, where a forest biomass plant will produce fuel for the u.s. navy and marines. it's one of three companies selected by the departments of defense energy and agriculture to have these biofuels. once it scales, the biorefineries will have the combined capacity to produce
100 million barrels of gas while reducing their greenhouse gas emissions by 50% compared to conventional fuels. our military and nation are faced with a growing global demand for energy. we need to have a greater emphasis on renewable energy and energy-efficient efficient technologies. this bill would prohibit the department of energy, the lead agency with deep technical expertise in this area, from partnering with the department of defense to develop biofuels. the amendment i'm offering strikes this prohibition and will allow the departments of energy and defense to continue their efforts to learn from each others' expertise. mr. chairman, i want to introduce into the record a letter opposing the prohibition from the truman national security project where they note -- these are military -- retired military -- four years of partnership between the departments of defense, energy and agriculture has seen impressive progress in the development of advanced drop-in biofuels that will allow the military to turn away from an
outdated fuel source. members of the military from every rank and service have spoken out in favor of the continued investment in biofuels for the reasons of cost and capability. the chair: your request will be covered by general leave. ms. bonamici: yes. i request the letter to be entered and urge adoption of the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas mr. smith, seek recognition? mr. smith: mr. chairman, i claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. smith: and i'll yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from texas, mr. weber, who is chairman of the energy subcommittee of the science committee. the chair: the gentleman from texas, mr. weber, ask recognized for four minutes. ms. weber: i thank the gentleman -- mr. weber: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i flies opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment and in support of the underlying reforms included in h.r. 1806, the america competes re-authorization act of 2015. this amendment would remove a limitation included in the
underlying bill that prevents the department of energy from using funding authorized for the eere biofuels program to conduct commercial production of biofuels for defense purposes. the fact is that eere already spends too much of their current budget on deployment and commercialization of renewable and energy-efficient technologies instead of research and development. the d.o.e.'s ongoing effort to fund commercial-scale biofuels production for military purposes in cooperation with the department of defense is just one example. redirecting funds from biofuels r&d is part of a broader problem. department of energy research and development programs should be focused on science, not creating a market for certain types of fuels. the d.o.e. should focus on a new idea for the market not a market for the new idea.
the department of defense spends billions annually on fuel costs, billions. when viable biofuels technology is able to compete with conventional fuels trust me, the private sector can and will develop commercial scale biofuels productions to meet demand. it's just that simple, mr. chairman. and despite significant federal programs to support the use of biofuels, a use g.a.o. government accountability office, study concluded that the long-term viability of alternative fuels is dependent on market factors, not federal funds or mandates. that same study reported that department of defense paid $150 per gallon per 1,500 gallons of jet fuel directed by algile fuel. the other side maybe in fact
promoting their global warming theory because when taxpayers find out about this kind of waste, there's going to be a lot of them hot under the collar. the department of energy should focus on research and development, not commercial biofuels production. this limitation is consistent with the broader goals of the america competes re-authorization act which prioritizes research and development in all r&d program areas. while cutting spending on deployment and commercialization, i'm aghast, mr. chairman, that other side somehow thinks congress shouldn't be paying attention with the way taxpayer dollars are being spent. for these reasons i encourage my colleagues to vote no on this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas, mr. weber, yields back. the gentleman from texas, mr. smith reserves. and the gentlelady from oregon is recognized. ms. bonamici: can i please inquire as to the amount of time remaining? the chair: the gentlelady from oregon has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. ms. bonamici: i'd like to yield
two minutes to a member of the science committee, mr. peters of california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. peters: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i rise as a co-sponsor of this amendment and glad to be working with congress member bonamici and my colleague on the armed services committee, ranking member adam smith. our amendment simply allows the department of energy to continue its collaborative work with the department of defense to produce biofuels for the military. the department of defense is the single largest institutional consumer of fuel in the world, and this is all about saving money. our military spends about $20 billion a year on energy $16 billion of which goes to oil fuels. and as we've seen in recent years, global oil markets are volatile. despite massive production increases in the united states, according to the energy information agency, last year our net imports of petroleum were five million barrels per day with our top five suppliers being canada, saudi arabia mexico, venezuela and iraq.
that reliance on a volatile foreign-produced source of fuel puts our national security at risk. particularly when we face dynamic new threats from nonstate actors such as isis, al qaeda or individual terrorist who is can disrupt oil production and supply lines in new and intimidating ways. the constraints of depending so heavily on a single source of fuel also puts our readiness at risk, a problem that will only increase as we're forced to respond to international incidents dents across the globe at a moment's notice. instead of standing idly by waiting for a fuel supply crisis, which comes from time to time would endanger our ability to confront those wanting to harm our country, the departments of defense energy and agriculture have been working with private sector innovators to develop renewable biofuels that could be used by planes, tactical vehicles and ships. the navy already has innovative partnerships with algi
producers and with their high-skilled workers in san diego. and congress should be laying the groundwork for more strategic public-private partnerships to develop like those in san diego, not mandating they cannot exist. the military is not pursuing this fuel supply diversity because they're tree hugging environmentalists but because it's a national security imperative. foolishly today's competes act would bar the department of defense from working with the department of energy in an operation that would cost no more money. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady from oregon reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: mr. chairman, we're prepared to close so reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlelady from organize. ms. bonamici: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield 30 seconds to a member of the science committee, mr. beyer from virginia. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. beyer: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank my dear friend, ms. bon eachy, for yielding and for her -- ms. bonamici for yielding and for her leadership on this issue. i support this commonsense amendment to develop biofuel
options for our military. d.o.d.'s reliance on a single source of fuel threatens our national security and contributes significantly to spending. why would we not want the department of energy with their deep technical expertise in this area to assist defense, to create alternatives petroleum-based fuels? it makes no sense. i urge my colleagues to support and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from oregon's time has expired as well. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: mr. chairman, in closing, the gentlewoman's amendment would remove an important limitation from the underlying bill that prevents the department of energy from spending research dollars to fund commercial-scale biofuels development for defense purposes. d.o.e. should focus on innovative research and development, not commercial production of any particular form of energy. for these reasons i encourage members to oppose this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the
amendment offered by the gentlelady from oregon, ms. bonamici. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. . ms. bonamici: i would request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from oregon will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 11 printed in part a of house report 114-120. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. desaulnier: i have an amendment at the desk -- i have an amendment at the desk for mr. desallier. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 271, the gentleman
from virginia, mr. beyer and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. beyer: i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. chair, i'm proud to speak in support of our amendment which would restore the arpa-e of developing energy technologies that result inductions. i believe that this is an important and urgent area of research and should remain explicitly stated in the statute as a goal for arpa-e. the statute says the goals shall be dot dot, dot, small letter i and reductions of energy-related emissions, inclouding greenhouse gases and improvement in the energy efficiency of all economic sectors. these are the three goals that have been removed from the current bill. global concentrations have risen
by 120 parts per million. half of that since 198 . burning of coal oil and natural gas is driving the acceleration of greenhouse concentrations in our atmosphere. two weeks ago, it was reported that the concentration of carbon dioxide has surpassed 400 parts per million. we must look to develop alternative energy sources that will reduce manmade emissions. arpa-e can help us with this mission. since 2009, it has funded over 400 potentially transformational energy technology projects. a number of these projects have spurred private sector funding and have formed startup companies and partnered with the government to advance their technologies. reducing energy-related emissions is an important component to our nation's economic and energy security.
and therefore, i urge my colleagues to support our amendment to reinstate these three goals for arpa-e and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. smith: i claim time in opposition to the amendment. i yield to the gentleman from georgia. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. mr. loudermilk: i rise to oppose this amendment because i support research that will enhance both the economic security and energy security of the united states. the original america competes act which established the advanced research projects agency required the agency to only pursue projects that reduced greenhouse gases. the bill before us today allows
any advanced energy technology that could enhance economic and energy security to compete for arpa-e funding. this levels the playing field and ensures that arpa-e funds research with the greatest potential to have positive impact on the american economy. the competes act provides a balanced approach by prioritizing funding towards innovative projects that are in need of research dollars and removes restrictions that allow the administration to play favorites in the energy sector. however, this amendment would strike the language which expands the arpa-e project eligibility. as a result, this amendment would limit innovative research and development. with all the national security challenges we face today from terrorism to subber security breaches to our debt we focus our attention on broadening our
energy base and achieving energy independence, not limiting ourselves to one small area of environmental science. i believe we must adopt an all of the above energy strategy that improves our energy security and emfafa sizes those which reduce greenhouse gases. congress shouldn't put limits on innovation that would prevent from participating in arpa-e programs. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. beyer: how much time remains? the chair: the gentleman from virginia has three minutes remaining. mr. beyer: i would like to yield one minute to the ranking member of the science committee. the chair: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for one minute. ms. johnson: thank you very much. it is deeply troubling to me
that this amendment had to be offered. this amendment strips away fundamental component of the arpa-e program. as virtually every scienceist in the world agrees greenhouse gas emissions are growing so rapidly and is a growing threat to our way of life. why wouldn't we want one of the most innovative agencies to develop technologies that could address this critical issue? arpa-e has made good funding choices supporting valuable research as proven by its impressive track record of successful projects since it was first authorized. i certainly see no value in changing something that no serious policy analyst believes is broken. this gentleman and mr. beyer amendment sets this clearly
misguided provision aside. i support it and i urge my colleagues to do so as well and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. chairman we have no other speakers and i'm prepared to close. so we reserve. the chair: the gentleman from virginia. mr. beyer: i reserve myself the balance of the time. i listened with great interest to the rebutal or alternative argument and i found myself agreeing with almost everything he said. but misunderstanding why retaining these three goals somehow limited -- retain these goals plays favorites and create limits on innovation and oppose efforts to find our economic and energy security. the purpose of the amendment was to recognize that reducing dependence on foreign oil, trying to find ways to limit greenhouse gases and improving
the energy efficiency are worthy goals. what we need to do is add a fourth one which would be to place it first. it says the goals will be first to develop any breakthroughs in innovation that help the economic and energy security of the nation. so that there is no playing of favorites or no arbitrary limitations and if we can work that out that would be great. otherwise, i urge my colleagues to support the amendment as offered. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from virginia yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. chairman, the gentleman's amendment would remove key policy reforms from the competes bill and place limitations on the research and development conducted at arpa-e. federally funded research should include innovative technologies for all forms of energy, not just the president's personal
preferences. i urge members to oppose the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. beyer: i would request a recorded vote on the amendment. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 12 printed in part a of house report 1114-120. for what purpose does gentlelady seek recognition? ms. johnson: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 12 printed in part a of house report 114-120 offered by mrs. johnson of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 271, the gentlewoman
from texas and a member opposed each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas. ms. johnson: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for as much time as she wishes to use. ms. johnson: so much of today's debate is 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 co-sponsored 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 that was embodied since rising above the gathering storm report.
the substitute amendment which was introduced as h.r. 1898 stays true to one of these principles. it sets targets and provides for steady and sustained real growth and funding for our research and development agencies. it makes a strong statement that the u.s. congress sees funding for all fields of research as a top national priority. it does not include false 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 to
the pakistan that the federal government made with our debatest research universities following our victory in world war ii and the onset of a space race that led us to the creation of n.s.f. and nasa. this pakistan has made the national institutes of standards and technology and the department of energy among the world's greatest and most admired research agencies. specifically, my amendment fully funds -- authorizes the fully funding of these agencies at the fiscal year 2016 request level and continue to provide 5% annual increases for five 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 authorizes and fully funds arpa-e, which was created in 2007 in the competes act and has exceeded every expectation for creating innovative new energy technologies and spurring private sector 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 of the my amendment fully funds the standards work at nist. in addition to that accelerate growth in advanced manufacturing we need to bring those manufacturing jobs back home. we need to make it in america.
nist is an essential partner in this effort. finally, my amendment takes seriously the issue of stem education, including broadening participation in stem. stem language is not just senses of congress about how important stem is and other fellow 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 talent 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 work force our industries demand. . it corrects a glaring deficit
in the underlying legislation. i'm proud of the work that i have done on this committee for many years and of the contributions that my democratic colleagues made to this substitute amendment. it truly is a complete re-authorization act in every way. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to carefully consider the fork in the road. if you really want to do right by this 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 overwhelm the doors to 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 the 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. the chair: the gentlelady from texas reserves her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. smith: mr. chairman, i claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 10 minutes. mr. smith: mr. chairman i oppose the gentlewoman's amendment. as i mentioned in my opening remarks, i support a reasonable 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. more spending sounds good even though it's against the law. in fiscal year 2016 alone, this amendment wine crease spending by -- would increase spending by $600 million. the amendment increases spending on later stage research and technology best done by the private sector. since the last congress we had 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 strengthen stem provisions related 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 3 of the bill are three piecess of bipartisan legislation that passed the science committee by -- pieces of bipartisan legislation that passed the science committee in march. i urge my colleagues to support a balanced approach of fiscal responsibility and targeted investments in priorities, 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. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves his time. the gentlelady from texas is recognized. ms. johnson: thank you, mr. chair. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from illinois. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for three minutes. mr. lipinski: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank ms. johnson for yielding, and i'm proud to rise in support of her amendment in a nature of a substitute and
also proud to co-sponsor 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 n.s.f. title of the re-authorization. these are two of my proudest moments in congress because those were bipartisan bills to set us on a path to continuing leading the world in scientific research and innovation for the next generation. sadly, in recent years we've let that progress stall. and make no mistake, other nations are continuing to invest and are continuing to innovate. if we don't come together and 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 the advanced research project research agency which promotes research and developmentnd 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 more than 50% cut in the research 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 n.s.f. social science research to raise billions of dollars. social science is perhaps the most critical component to preventing cybercrimes. considering that the majority of all cyberbreaches occur because of social factors like using easy to guess passwords or clicking on a link in a phishing attack, we should have increase ready 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's 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 and with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentlelady from texas reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to my colleague from texas, mr. babin, who is a member of the science, space and technology committee. the chair: the gentleman from texas, mr. babin, is recognized for two minutes. mr. babin: mr. chair, i rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment. the gentlewoman's amendment makes everything a priority so that nothing really is. this amendment rubber stamps 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. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlelady from texas. ms. johnson: how much time do i have left, mr. chairman? the chair: the gentlelady from texas has a minute and a half remaining. ms. johnson: i'd like to yield one minute to the gentlelady from oregon. the chair: the gentlelady from oregon is recognized for one minute. ms. bonamici: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for yielding. i rise 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 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 n.s.f. 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 social behavioral and economic sciences directorate and geosciences directorate. some of this funding has been used for example, for oregon state university to conduct research on ocean acidification. it's also been used critically to support the work in oregon to develop our understanding of the risks posed to cascadia earthquakes. and this undermines the n.s.f.
to make strategic science-based decisions. i urge my colleagues to supporting the substitute amendment. thank you. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady from texas reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: mr. chairman we're prepared to close so i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlelady from texas. ms. johnson: thank you, 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'm 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 would urge everyone to support it. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back her time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: the gentlewoman's amendment ignores the law of the land. she and more than 90 other democrats supported the budget control act. i want a sustainable path forward for science and technology but it is not sustainable to spend more and more taxpayer dollars and increase the debt that future generation also 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 priorities of science and basic research. vote no on the amendment and yes on the underlying bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentlelady from texas. ms. johnson: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part a of house report 114-120 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order -- amendment number 2 by ms. johnson of texas, amendment
number 6 by mr. griffith of virginia amendment number 8 by mr. lowenthal of california, amendment number 10 by ms. bonamici of oregon, amendment number 11 by mr. beyer of virginia amendment number 12 by ms. johnson. the chair will reduce to two minutes the max minimum -- the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in the series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 print the in part a of house report 114-120 by the gentlewoman from texas ms. eddie bernice johnson, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part a of house report 114-120 offered by ms. eddie bernice johnson of texas. the chair: a recorded vote's been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes
by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 177. the nays are 243. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 6 printed in part a of house report 114-120 by the gentleman from virginia mr. griffith, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by
voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in part a of house report 114-120 offered by mr. griffith of virginia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]