59–006 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 110–172 

10,000 TRAINED BY 2010 ACT 

JUNE 6, 2007.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. GORDON of Tennessee, from the Committee on Science and 

Technology, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 1467] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Science and Technology, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 1467) to authorize the National Science Foundation to award grants to institutions of higher education to develop and offer education and training programs, having considered 

the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Bill ................................................................................................................ 2 

II. Purpose of the Bill ...................................................................................... 15 

III. Background and Need for the Legislation ................................................ 15 

IV. Hearing Summary ....................................................................................... 16 

V. Committee Actions ...................................................................................... 16 

VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill .................................................. 17 

VII. Section-by-Section Analysis (by Title and Section) .................................. 17 

VIII. Committee Views ........................................................................................ 17 

IX. Cost Estimate .............................................................................................. 18 

X. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ............................................. 18 

XI. Compliance with Public Law 104–4 .......................................................... 20 

XII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations ........................... 20 

XIII. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives ...................... 20 

XIV. Constitutional Authority Statement .......................................................... 21 

XV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement ................................................... 21 

XVI. Congressional Accountability Act .............................................................. 21 

XVII. Earmark Identification ............................................................................... 21 

XVIII. Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law ........................ 21 

XIX. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ........................ 21 

XX. Committee Recommendations .................................................................... 21 

XXI. Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup ............................................. 21 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARING
2 

I. BILL

Union Calendar No. 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1467 

[Report No. 110– ] 

To authorize the National Science Foundation to award grants to institutions 

of higher education to develop and offer education and training programs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 9, 2007 

Mr. WU (for himself, Mr. HALL of Texas, Mr. GORDON of Tennessee, and Mr. 

GINGREY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science and Technology 

JUNE --, 2007 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 

and ordered to be printed 

A BILL 

To authorize the National Science Foundation to award 

grants to institutions of higher education to develop and 

offer education and training programs. 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARING
3 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘10,000 Trained by 

5 2010 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 The Congress finds that— 

8 (1) the National Science Foundation has long 

9 been a government leader in strengthening our Na10 tion’s information infrastructure; 

11 (2) as automation and digitization reach the 

12 healthcare industry, that industry will need to draw 

13 heavily on the expertise of researchers funded by the 

14 National Science Foundation for the collection, proc15 essing, and utilization of information; 

16 (3) the National Science Foundation’s basic re17 search, demonstrations, and curriculum development 

18 assistance are all required to help make sure the in19 dustry has the knowledge, procedures, and workforce 

20 necessary to take full advantage of advanced com21 munications and information technology; 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARING
4 

1 (4) the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated 

2 that 136,000 Americans were employed in 2000 as 

3 information management professionals in the 

4 healthcare industry alone, with projected growth of 

5 49 percent by 2010; and 

6 (5) no systematic plan exists for designing and 

7 implementing systems and information tools and for 

8 ensuring that the healthcare workforce can make the 

9 transition to the information age. 

10 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

11 In this Act: 

12 (1) DIRECTOR.—The term ‘‘Director’’ means 

13 the Director of the National Science Foundation. 

14 (2) INFORMATION.—The term ‘‘information’’ 

15 means healthcare information. 

16 (3) INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION.—The 

17 term ‘‘institution of higher education’’ has the 

18 meaning given that term in section 101 of the High19 er Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001). 

20 SEC. 4. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION RESEARCH. 

21 (a) GRANTS.— 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARING
5 

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Director, in consulta2 tion with the heads of other Federal agencies as ap3 propriate, shall award grants for basic research on 

4 innovative approaches to improve information sys5 tems. Research areas may include— 

6 (A) information studies; 

7 (B) population informatics; 

8 (C) translational informatics; and 

9 (D) data security, integrity, and confiden10 tiality. 

11 (2) MERIT REVIEW; COMPETITION.—Grants 

12 shall be awarded under this section on a merit-re13 viewed, competitive basis. 

14 (3) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— 

15 There are authorized to be appropriated to the Na16 tional Science Foundation to carry out this sub17 section— 

18 (A) $3,500,000 for fiscal year 2008; 

19 (B) $3,600,000 for fiscal year 2009; 

20 (C) $3,700,000 for fiscal year 2010; and 

21 (D) $3,800,000 for fiscal year 2011. 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARING
6 

1 (b) INFORMATICS RESEARCH CENTERS.— 

2 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Director, in consulta3 tion with the heads of other Federal agencies as ap4 propriate, shall award multiyear grants, subject to 

5 the availability of appropriations, to institutions of 

6 higher education (or consortia thereof) to establish 

7 multidisciplinary Centers for Informatics Research. 

8 Institutions of higher education (or consortia there9 of) receiving such grants may partner with one or 

10 more government laboratories, for-profit institutions, 

11 or non-profit institutions. 

12 (2) MERIT REVIEW; COMPETITION.—Grants 

13 shall be awarded under this subsection on a merit14 reviewed, competitive basis. 

15 (3) PURPOSE.—The purpose of the Centers 

16 shall be to generate innovative approaches in infor17 mation by conducting cutting-edge, multidisciplinary 

18 research, including in the research areas described in 

19 subsection (a)(1). 

20 (4) APPLICATIONS.—An institution of higher 

21 education (or a consortium thereof) seeking funding 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARING
7 

1 under this subsection shall submit an application to 

2 the Director at such time, in such manner, and con3 taining such information as the Director may re4 quire. The application shall include, at a minimum, 

5 a description of— 

6 (A) the research projects that will be un7 dertaken by the Center and the contributions of 

8 each of the participating entities; 

9 (B) how the Center will promote active col10 laboration among professionals from different 

11 disciplines, such as information technology spe12 cialists, health professionals, administrators, 

13 and social science researchers; and 

14 (C) how the Center will contribute to in15 creasing the number of information researchers 

16 and other professionals. 

17 (5) CRITERIA.—In evaluating the applications 

18 submitted under paragraph (4), the Director shall 

19 consider, at a minimum— 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARING
8 

1 (A) the ability of the applicant to generate 

2 innovative approaches to information and effec3 tively carry out the research program; 

4 (B) the experience of the applicant in con5 ducting research in the information field, and 

6 the capacity of the applicant to foster new mul7 tidisciplinary collaborations; 

8 (C) the capacity of the applicant to attract 

9 and provide adequate support for under10 graduate and graduate students to pursue in11 formation research; and 

12 (D) the extent to which the applicant will 

13 partner with government laboratories or for14 profit or non-profit entities, and the role the 

15 government laboratories or for-profit or non16 profit entities will play in the research under17 taken by the Center. 

18 (6) ANNUAL MEETING.—The Director shall 

19 convene an annual meeting of the Centers in order 

20 to foster collaboration and communication between 

21 Center participants. 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARING
9 

1 (7) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— 

2 There are authorized to be appropriated for the Na3 tional Science Foundation to carry out this sub4 section— 

5 (A) $4,500,000 for fiscal year 2008; 

6 (B) $4,600,000 for fiscal year 2009; 

7 (C) $4,700,000 for fiscal year 2010; and 

8 (D) $4,800,000 for fiscal year 2011. 

9 SEC. 5. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION INFORMATION 

10 PROGRAMS. 

11 (a) CAPACITY BUILDING GRANTS.— 

12 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Director, in consulta13 tion with the heads of other Federal agencies as ap14 propriate, shall establish a program to award grants 

15 to institutions of higher education (or consortia 

16 thereof) to establish or improve undergraduate and 

17 master’s degree information programs, to increase 

18 the number of students who pursue undergraduate 

19 or master’s degrees in information fields, to provide 

20 students with experience in government or industry 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARING
10 

1 related to their information studies, and, to the ex2 tent practicable, to do so using distance learning. 

3 (2) MERIT REVIEW; COMPETITION.—Grants 

4 shall be awarded under this subsection on a merit5 reviewed, competitive basis. 

6 (3) USE OF FUNDS.—Grants awarded under 

7 this subsection shall be used for activities that en8 hance the ability of an institution of higher edu9 cation (or consortium thereof) to provide high-qual10 ity information education, including certification and 

11 undergraduate and master’s degree programs, and 

12 to recruit and retain increased numbers of students 

13 to such programs. Activities may include— 

14 (A) developing and revising curriculum to 

15 better prepare undergraduate and master’s de16 gree students for careers in the information 

17 field; 

18 (B) establishing degree and certificate pro19 grams in the information field; 

20 (C) creating opportunities in information 

21 research for undergraduate students; 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARING
11 

1 (D) acquiring equipment necessary for stu2 dent instruction in these programs, including 

3 the installation of testbed networks for student 

4 use; 

5 (E) providing opportunities for faculty to 

6 work with State, local, or Federal Government 

7 agencies, private industry, and other academic 

8 institutions to develop new expertise or to for9 mulate new information research directions; 

10 (F) establishing collaborations with other 

11 academic institutions or departments that seek 

12 to establish, expand, or enhance these pro13 grams; 

14 (G) establishing student internships for 

15 students in these programs at State, local, and 

16 Federal Government agencies or in private in17 dustry; 

18 (H) establishing or enhancing bridge pro19 grams in information fields between community 

20 colleges and universities; and 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARING
12 

1 (I) any other activities the Director, in 

2 consultation with the heads of other Federal 

3 agencies as appropriate, determines will achieve 

4 the purposes described in paragraph (1). 

5 (4) SELECTION PROCESS.— 

6 (A) APPLICATION.—An institution of high7 er education (or a consortium thereof) seeking 

8 funding under this subsection shall submit an 

9 application to the Director at such time, in such 

10 manner, and with such contents as the Director 

11 may require. The application shall include, at a 

12 minimum— 

13 (i) a description of the applicant’s rel14 evant research and instructional capacity, 

15 and in the case of an application from a 

16 consortium of institutions of higher edu17 cation, a description of the role that each 

18 member will play in implementing the pro19 posal; 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARING
13 

1 (ii) a comprehensive plan by which the 

2 institution or consortium will build instruc3 tional capacity in information fields; 

4 (iii) a description of relevant collabo5 rations with State, local, or Federal Gov6 ernment agencies or private industry that 

7 inform the instructional program; 

8 (iv) a survey of the applicant’s his9 toric student enrollment and placement 

10 data and a study of potential enrollment 

11 and placement for students enrolled in the 

12 proposed program; and 

13 (v) a plan to evaluate the success of 

14 the proposed program, including post15 graduate assessment of graduate school 

16 and job placement and retention rates as 

17 well as the relevance of the instructional 

18 program to graduate study and to the 

19 workplace. 

20 (B) AWARDS.—The Director shall ensure, 

21 to the extent practicable, that grants are 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARING
14 

1 awarded under this subsection in a wide range 

2 of geographic areas and categories of institu3 tions of higher education. 

4 (5) ASSESSMENT REQUIRED.—The Director, in 

5 consultation with the heads of other Federal agen6 cies as appropriate, shall evaluate the program es7 tablished under this subsection no later than 3 years 

8 after the establishment of the program. At a min9 imum, the Director shall evaluate the extent to 

10 which the grants have achieved their objectives of in11 creasing the quality and quantity of students pur12 suing undergraduate or master’s degrees in informa13 tion fields. The Director shall make this assessment 

14 publicly available. 

15 (6) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— 

16 There are authorized to be appropriated to the Na17 tional Science Foundation to carry out this sub18 section— 

19 (A) $9,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; 

20 (B) $9,200,000 for fiscal year 2009; 

21 (C) $9,400,000 for fiscal year 2010; and 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARING
15 

1 (D) $9,600,000 for fiscal year 2011. 

2 (b) SCIENTIFIC AND ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ACT

3 OF 1992.— 

4 (1) GRANTS.—The Director shall provide 

5 grants under the Scientific and Advanced Tech6 nology Act of 1992 for the purposes of section 3(a) 

7 and (b) of that Act, except that the activities sup8 ported pursuant to this subsection shall be limited to 

9 improving education in fields related to information. 

10 (2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— 

11 There are authorized to be appropriated to the Na12 tional Science Foundation to carry out this sub13 section— 

14 (A) $7,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; 

15 (B) $7,200,000 for fiscal year 2009; 

16 (C) $7,400,000 for fiscal year 2010; and 

17 (D) $7,600,000 for fiscal year 2011. 

II. PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to authorize the National Science 

Foundation to award grants to institutions of higher education to 

develop and offer education and training programs. 

III. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

Healthcare information technology (‘‘health IT’’), if properly implemented, will cut down on the estimated 44,000–98,000 annual 

American deaths related to medical errors and on the nearly $300 

billion spent annually on inefficient and unnecessary treatments. 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARING
16 

Electronic healthcare technology cannot be effective, however, without a workforce in place to manage the technology and unless those 

who will use health IT to perform their duties are properly trained. 

Despite federal assistance to other areas of health IT, there is no 

systematic plan for training of the current healthcare workforce to 

use health information technology in the current jobs. Additionally, 

the need for individuals who specialize in managing health IT is 

expected to grow 49 percent from 2000 to 2010, and nearly 75 percent of health organizations say that there are not enough qualified 

applicants to fill open health IT management positions. Without a 

trained workforce, health IT cannot succeed. 

IV. HEARING SUMMARY

During the 109th Congress, the House Committee on Science 

held one hearing relevant to H.R. 1467. On February 23, 2006, the 

Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards held a 

field hearing entitled, ‘‘Health Care Information Technology: What 

are the Opportunities for and Barriers to Inter-operable Health Information Technology Systems?’’ Testimony was received from 

seven witnesses: (1) Mr. William Jeffrey, Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology; (2) Dr. Jody Pettit, Project 

Chair, Portland Health Care Quality Corporation; (3) Ms. Diane 

Cecchettini, President and CEO, MultiCare Health System; (4) Mr. 

John Kenagy, CIO, Oregon Health and Science University; (5) Dr. 

Homer Chin, Medical Director, Clinical Information Systems, Kaiser Permanente; (6) Mr. Luis Machuca, President and CEO, 

Kryptiq Corporation; and (7) Mr. Prem Urali, President and CEO, 

HealthUnity Corporation. 

During this hearing two related issues were raised by all witnesses: (1) the lack of IT professionals with specialized training to 

develop appropriate health IT software and to work in healthcare 

settings; and (2) the lack of training for healthcare professionals to 

efficiently use information technology in their jobs. All of the witnesses agreed that the lack of trained professionals was a significant obstacle to the adoption of health IT systems. 

V. COMMITTEE ACTIONS

As summarized in Section IV of this report, the Subcommittee on 

Environment, Technology and Standards heard testimony in the 

109th Congress relevant to the programs authorized in H.R. 1467. 

On March 9, 2007, Representative David Wu, Chairman of the 

Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation of the Committee on 

Science and Technology, for himself and Representatives Hall, Gordon and Gingrey introduced H.R. 1467, the ‘‘10,000 Trained by 

2010 Act,’’ to authorize the National Science Foundation to award 

grants to institutions of higher education to develop and offer education and training programs. 

On May 23, 2007, the Committee on Science and Technology met 

to consider H.R. 1467. Mr. Hall moved that the Committee favorably report the bill, H.R. 1467 to the House with the recommendation that the bill do pass; that the staff be instructed to make necessary technical and conforming changes; and that the Chairman 

take all necessary steps to bring the bill before the House for consideration. The motion was agreed to by voice vote. 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARING
17 

VI. SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE BILL

Authorizes NSF to award grants to institutions of higher education to: carry out research on innovative approaches to enhancing 

healthcare informatics through hardware and software solutions; 

establish multidisciplinary Centers for Healthcare Informatics Research; and establish or improve undergraduate and master’s degree programs, as well as certificate programs in healthcare 

informatics. Authorizes NSF to expand the activities of the Advanced Technological Education program to support improved education and technical training, at 2-year colleges, in fields related to 

healthcare informatics. 

VII. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE BILL

Sec. 1. Short Title—10,000 Trained by 2010 Act. 

Sec. 2. Findings—Describes findings for this Act. 

Sec. 3. Definitions—Provides definitions for this Act. 

Sec. 4. National Science Foundation Research—Authorizes NSF 

to award grants to institutions of higher education for research on 

innovative approaches to enhancing healthcare informatics through 

hardware and software solutions. The focus of this research would 

be in the area of clinical/healthcare informatics, public health/population informatics, translational informatics, and privacy and confidentiality. Authorizes NSF to award grants to institutions of 

higher education to establish multidisciplinary Centers for 

Healthcare Informatics Research. Applicants may partner with government laboratories and/or for-profit institutions. These Centers 

are designed to advance the health IT research agenda and to train 

additional qualified health IT personnel and professionals, including physicians, nurses, information technology specialists, medical 

administrators and social scientists. Instructs NSF to convene an 

annual meeting of Center investigators to facilitate information exchange. 

Sec. 5. National Science Foundation Information Programs—Authorizes NSF to establish a program to award grants to institutions 

of higher education to establish or improve undergraduate and 

master’s degree programs, as well as certificate programs in 

healthcare informatics, to increase the number of students who 

pursue studies in fields related to health IT and to provide students with experience in government or the private sector related 

to their health IT studies. Funds may be used for curriculum development, faculty development, equipment acquisition, student recruitment and/or the establishment of bridge programs with twoyear colleges and industry internship programs for students. The 

provision encourages the use of distance learning when appropriate. Finally, authorizes NSF to expand the activities of the Advanced Technological Education program (centered on two-year institutions), established under the Scientific and Advanced Technology Act of 1992, to support improved education and technical 

training in fields related to health IT. 

VIII. COMMITTEE VIEWS

The Committee recognizes the benefits that an integrated 

healthcare information technology network could provide. However, 

the Committee believes that investment in physical infrastructure 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARING
18 

and technology alone is not enough. In fact, the lack of a workforce 

with the appropriate skill sets and training can impede the adoption of technology. 

H.R. 1467 is designed to fill a gap in education and training for 

health IT students and professionals who will design and/or use 

health IT systems. Given the National Science Foundation’s expertise in overseeing curriculum development, training and research 

in the broad field of IT, NSF is uniquely positioned to bring its IT 

and educational expertise to bear in the specialized area of health 

IT. 

IX. COST ESTIMATE

A cost estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the 

Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974 has been timely submitted to the Committee on 

Science and Technology prior to the filing of this report and is included in Section X of this report pursuant to House Rule XIII, 

clause 3(c)(3). 

H.R. 1467 does not contain new budget authority, credit authority, or changes in revenues or tax expenditures. Assuming that the 

sums authorized under the bill are appropriated, H.R. 1467 does 

authorize additional discretionary spending, as described in the 

Congressional Budget Office report on the bill, which is contained 

in Section X of this report. 

X. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

JUNE 1, 2007. 

Hon. BART GORDON, 

Chairman, Committee on Science and Technology, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1467, the 10,000 Trained 

by 2010 Act. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Daniel Hoople. 

Sincerely, 

PETER R. ORSZAG. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 1467—10,000 Trained by 2010 Act 

Summary: H.R. 1467 would authorize the appropriation of about 

$100 million over the 2008–2011 period for the National Science 

Foundation (NSF) to award grants to institutions of higher education to conduct basic research and improve undergraduate and 

graduate education in the study of information systems. Research 

grants would be awarded on a competitive basis to develop innovative approaches to improve the collection and management of information. Additionally, grant funds authorized by the bill would be 

used to develop curricula, acquire equipment, establish and expand 

degree programs, and undertake other activities to improve education in information-related fields. 

CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1467 would cost $83 million over the 2008–2012 period (with additional outlays after 2012), 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARING
19 

assuming the appropriation of the specified funds. Enacting H.R. 

1467 would have no effect on direct spending or revenues. 

H.R. 1467 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA); 

costs to public institutions of higher education would result from 

complying with conditions of federal assistance. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 1467 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget function 250 (general science, 

space, and technology). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Research Grants: 

Authorization Level ......................................................................................... 4 4 4 4 0 

Estimated Outlays .......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 3 

Informatics Research Centers: 

Authorization Level ......................................................................................... 5 5 5 5 0 

Estimated Outlays .......................................................................................... 1 3 4 4 4 

Capacity Building Grants: 

Authorization Level ......................................................................................... 9 9 9 10 0 

Estimated Outlays .......................................................................................... 1 5 7 9 8 

Information Education and Centers: 

Authorization Level ......................................................................................... 7 7 7 8 0 

Estimated Outlays .......................................................................................... 1 4 6 7 6 

Total Changes: 

Authorization Level ................................................................................ 25 25 25 27 0 

Estimated Outlays ................................................................................. 4 14 20 24 21 

Basis of estimate: H.R. 1467 would authorize the appropriation 

of about $100 million over the next five years for the NSF to award 

grants to institutions of higher education for research and education programs on information systems. For this estimate, CBO 

assumes that the bill will be enacted in fiscal year 2007 and that 

the amounts authorized by the bill will be appropriated for each 

fiscal year. Assuming the appropriation of the specified amounts, 

CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1467 would cost $4 million 

in 2008 and $83 million over the 2008–2012 period. 

Research grants 

H.R. 1467 would establish a grant program for institutions of 

higher education to conduct research on innovative approaches to 

improve information systems. The bill would authorize the appropriation of about $15 million to NSF for this activity over the 

2008–2011 period. Based on the historical spending patterns of 

other NSF research activities, CBO estimates that implementing 

this grant program at the levels specified in the bill would cost $13 

million over the 2008–2012 period. 

Informatics research centers 

H.R. 1467 would authorize the appropriation of $20 million over 

the next four years to establish informatics research centers. Competitive, multi-year grants would be awarded to institutions of 

higher education to conduct informatics research (i.e., the study of 

the structure, behavior and interactions of systems that store, process, and communicate information.) Assuming the appropriation of 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARING
20 

the specified amounts, CBO estimates that implementing this provision would cost $16 million over the 2008–2012 period. 

Capacity building grants 

H.R. 1467 would direct NSF to award grants to institutions of 

higher education to improve undergraduate and graduate education 

in information systems. Grants could be used to establish or expand degree programs, develop curricula, acquire necessary equipment, foster relationships with the public and private sector, and 

provide opportunities for students to obtain practical experience in 

the information field. The bill would authorize the appropriation of 

$37 million over the 2008–2011 period for the operation of such a 

grant program. Based on the historical spending patterns of similar 

NSF programs, CBO estimates that implementing this provision 

would cost $30 million over the 2008–2012 period. 

Information education and centers 

H.R. 1467 would authorize the appropriation of $29 million over 

the 2008–2011 period for two grant programs originally created by 

the Scientific and Advanced Technology Act of 1992. Under that 

Act, NSF is directed to award grants to institutions of higher education that offer associate degree programs in advanced technology 

fields. Grants could be used to develop model instructional programs and materials, provide for the professional development of 

faculty members, establish partnerships with the public and private sectors, acquire necessary equipment, and establish centers 

that serve as information clearinghouses and models for other educational institutions. Assuming the appropriation of the specified 

amounts, CBO estimates that implementing this grant program 

would cost $24 million over the 2008–2012 period. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 1467 contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA. Public institutions of higher education would benefit from 

the research and program development activities authorized in the 

bill. Any costs those institutions might incur would result from 

complying with conditions of federal assistance. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Daniel Hoople. Impact on 

State, local, and tribal governments: Lisa Ramirez-Branum. Impact 

on the private sector: Amy Petz. 

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine: Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

XI. COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4

H.R. 1467 contains no unfunded mandates. 

XII. COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The oversight findings and recommendations of the Committee 

on Science and Technology are reflected in the body of this report. 

XIII. STATEMENT ON GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause (3)(c) of House rule XIII, the goals of H.R. 

1467 are to advance research and provide education and training 

in the area of information technology. 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARING
21 

XIV. CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United States 

grants Congress the authority to enact H.R. 1467. 

XV. FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

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

any advisory committee. 

XVI. CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

The Committee finds that H.R. 1467 does not relate to the terms 

and conditions of employment or access to public services or accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104–1). 

XVII. EARMARK IDENTIFICATION

H.R. 1467 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), 

or 9(f) of rule XXI. 

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

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

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

None. 

XX. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

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

XXI. PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARING

bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARING
(23) 

XXI. PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP ON H.R. 1467, THE 10,000 

TRAINED BY 2010 ACT 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 23, 2007 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bart Gordon 

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Chairman GORDON. Good morning everyone. The Committee on 

Science and Technology will come to order. Pursuant to notice, the 

Committee meets to consider the following measures: H.R. 364, To 

provide for the establishment of the Advanced Research Projects 

Agency–Energy; H.R. 1467, the 10,000 Trained by 2010 Act; H.R. 

1716, the Green Energy Education of 2007; and H.R. 632, the H–

Prize Act of 2007. 

Before we get started with this markup though, we have one 

quick piece of Committee business to attend to. The distinguished 

Member from California, Mr. Calvert, recently took a leave of absence from the Committee to serve on Appropriations. This left the 

Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee without a Ranking Member. 

Last week Mr. Hall announced that Representative Feeney would 

take over as Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, and I now ask 

unanimous consent that the Committee on Science and Technology 

ratify the selection of Mr. Feeney as Ranking Member of the Space 

and Aeronautics Subcommittee. Without objection—— Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, do you have to be present to be proposed or—— Chairman GORDON. Well, I am considering that no objection 

and—or may I say, I consider that a slight objection and it is so 

ordered. I want to congratulate Mr. Feeney. 

Let me also say that Ken Calvert—I was Ranking Member of 

this committee and Ken did much more than I did. He made an 

effort to go to every facility all across the country and became very 

knowledgeable and we hope that he will be a continuing asset and 

I am sure that Mr. Feeney will also do a good job, but Ken did a 

particularly good job and hopefully he will be there on Appropriations to understand these issues. 

We now begin with the markup and I will begin with a brief 

statement. Today the Committee is marking up four bills. The first 

bill we will consider is a bill that I introduced, H.R. 364, which establishes the Advanced Research Project Agency for Energy, and in 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARING
24 

the Subcommittee hearing and in the markup we had a very 

healthy discussion that I believe pointed to the critical need for 

such an entity. We have worked hard with our friends from across 

the aisle, and while there are still a few differences, it has resulted 

in a better bill. It is my understanding that this discussion will 

continue today with a number of amendments, and I look forward 

to addressing those concerns. 

The next bill we will take up is H.R. 1467, the 10,000 Trained 

by 2010 Act, introduced by Chairman Wu. This is a good bill which 

I support. There has been a lot of talking in Washington about the 

need to push health care IT forward. Our medical system is far behind other sectors in the use of information technology. However, 

it is common knowledge that information technology could significantly improve patient care and reduce health care costs, and let 

me just collaterally say that I have just introduced H.R. 2406. It 

is a health care IT bill that will be in the jurisdiction of this committee. As I think Mr. Gingerich can tell you, it is going to be wildly popular within the health care area, doctors, physicians, everyone. Health care IT or IT in the health care area is one of the few 

areas that hasn’t really matured. It is so popular that Newt 

Gingerich and Hillary Clinton are supporting this concept and so 

I would suggest to all of you to take a look at it. Don’t get involved 

if you don’t want to but I think you will find that it will be something that is going to be a good bill and will be popular for you. 

And we also have H.R. 1716, the Green Energy Education Act of 

2007. It was introduced by Mr. McCaul, and H.R. 1716 raises the 

profile of a very important issue, university research and education 

on clean energy including energy efficiency and green building design and technologies. It would bring together the Department of 

Energy, a emission agency, and the National Science Foundation, 

which has a long history with science and technological education, 

in a common goal to help educate the next generation of energy 

technology experts and green building professionals. This bill helps 

meet a very important need, and I thank Mr. McCaul for bringing 

it to the Committee, and who would have known he would have 

been such a greenie. But we thank you. This is a good bill. 

We also will consider Mr. Lipinski’s and Mr. Inglis’ H.R. 362, the 

H–Prize Act of 2007. Hydrogen technology represents just the type 

of transformational possibilities that we are hoping to achieve with 

ARPA–E and may some day make an important piece of our energy 

puzzle, and I commend our colleagues, Mr. Inglis and Mr. Lipinski, 

for working together to make this a good bipartisan bill and I look 

forward to moving it through the Committee today. 

So these are the four good bills that we have before us and I now 

would like to recognize Mr. Hall to present his opening remarks. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Gordon follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BART GORDON

Today the Committee is meeting to markup four bills. 

The first bill we will consider today is a bill that I introduced, H.R. 364, which 

establishes an Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy. In the Subcommittee 

hearing and markup we had a very healthy discussion that, I believe, pointed to 

the critical need for such an entity. 

We have worked hard with our friends across the aisle. And, while there are still 

substantial differences, it has resulted in a better bill. It is my understanding that 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARING
25 

this discussion will continue today with a number of amendments, and I look forward to addressing your concerns. 

The next bill we will take up is H. R. 1467, the 10,000 Trained by 2010 Act introduced by Chairman Wu. This is a good bill which I support. 

There has been a lot of talk in Washington about the need to push health care 

IT forward. Our medical system is far behind other sectors in the use of information 

technology. However, it is common knowledge that information technology could significantly improve patient care and reduce health care costs. 

While there has been a lot of discussion on the issue in Congress, not much has 

actually been done. In this case, Chairman Wu and other Members of the Committee have identified one component of the issue and how the Science and Technology Committee could make a real and positive contribution in this area. 

I strongly support this legislation and would urge everyone on the Committee to 

do so as well. 

H.R. 1716, the Green Energy Education Act of 2007, was reintroduced by Mr. 

McCaul this year after having passed the House as part of a broader bipartisan 

Science Committee Energy R&D bill at the end of the 109th Congress. 

H.R. 1716 raises the profile of a very important issue—university research and 

education on clean energy, including energy efficiency and green building design 

and technologies. It would bring together the Department of Energy, a mission 

agency, and the National Science Foundation, which has a long history with science 

and technology education, in a common goal to help educate the next generation of 

energy technology experts and green building professionals. 

This bill helps meet a very important need and I thank Mr. McCaul for bringing 

it to the Committee. 

We will also consider by Mr. Lipinski, H.R. 632, the H–Prize Act of 2007. Hydrogen technologies represent just the type of transformational possibilities that we are 

hoping to achieve with ARPA–E, and may some day make up an important piece 

of our energy puzzle. 

I commend my colleagues Mr. Inglis and Mr. Lipinski for working together and 

for working hard to make this a good, bipartisan bill. I look forward to moving it 

through Committee today. 

These are four good bills, and I strongly encourage my colleagues to support all 

of them. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, you and I have been working together 

now for over 22 years and on the same side of the aisle for most 

of that time, and if it weren’t for me switching parties you might 

not even be Chairman right now, and I have been talked to by 4/ 

5 of you bunch asking me to switch back. A good group on both 

sides. I appreciate everybody on both sides of the Chairman here, 

and you can thank me later if you would like. 

When you work with someone as long as we have, not only on 

this committee but also on the Commerce Committee—we are on 

that Committee together—there are bound to be some times when 

we are going to disagree, and as much as I dislike going against 

my friend from Tennessee, sometimes it just happens. As it turns 

out, today is one of those days. While I commend you, Bart, for 

your efforts on behalf of boosting energy R&D, I disagree with the 

way H.R. 364 does it. I have to say that I have a problem with the 

idea of creating a new bureaucracy within the Department of Energy that will regardless of intention fight for money with existing 

and future programs at DOE. With the tight budget parameters we 

are working with, I am not comfortable authorizing the creation of 

ARPA–E based on a vague recommendation that was in the Gathering Storm report. The facts are that DOE currently has the authority to do ARPA-type projects but DOE is woefully under-funded. I am concerned that we could be faced with the problem of having both the Office of Science and ARPA–E underfunded so that 

neither of them is operating at full potential if we go forward with 

the creation of this new agency, and before we go forward with any 

ARPA-type projects, I would like the Section 1821 study in EPAct 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARING
26 

to be completed that looks at the applicability of the DARPA management practices and the advisability of creating a DARPA-type 

agency within DOE before we move toward this legislation, and to 

that end, I will be introducing an amendment that without creating 

a new bureaucracy would require the Secretary of Energy to identify and accelerate advanced research projects at the DOE that will 

address our energy needs. I along with several of my colleagues 

have sent a letter to the Secretary urging him to complete the 

study as mandated by law so that we all might benefit from its recommendations. 

In addition to the letter, we also ask the Secretary to appoint a 

technology transfer coordinator and establish the technology transfer working group. As several of our witnesses testified to in our 

committee hearing, technology transfer plays a very integral part 

in the process from basic research to widespread commercialization. I don’t think anyone would dispute that our country needs 

clean, affordable, reliable energy that is generated through research and development. This committee should continue to advance legislation that addresses our most critical energy needs in 

a fiscally responsible manner. To that end, I will be introducing 

legislation by the end of the week that will help accomplish these 

goals. 

In addition to the ARPA–E legislation, we will also be marking 

up H.R. 1467, H.R. 1716 and H.R. 632. I am an original co-sponsor 

of H.R. 1467, the 10,000 Trained by 2010 Act, and I am supportive 

of the primary goal it seeks to achieve. If implemented correctly 

and efficiently, health information technology can revolutionize our 

health care system but we have to have an educated workforce 

properly trained in health IT in order for it to be successful, and 

this is what H.R. 1467 is about. NSF is already doing work, yeoman’s work in the IT arena but this measure will increase the 

focus on health IT. I encourage my colleagues to support it. 

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1716, the Green Energy 

Education Act of 2007, introduced by my fellow Texan, Mr. McCaul. 

This is a good piece of legislation. It was voted out of this committee in the last Congress. The fact that it has also been included 

in larger packages on both sides of the aisle in this Congress indicates its overwhelming support. Simply put, this measure encourages the Department of Energy to work with the National Science 

Foundation to help develop the next generation of engineers and 

architects to work effectively together to produce buildings that will 

incorporate the latest in energy-efficient technologies. I commend 

Mr. McCaul for his fine work on this bill. 

Finally, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 632, the H–Prize 

Act, sponsored by Inglis and Lipinski. This legislation was introduced in the last Congress and passed overwhelmingly by the 

House of Representatives. This bill directs the Secretary of Energy 

to award competitive cash prizes biannually to advance the research, development, demonstration and commercial applications of 

hydrogen energy technologies. Categories eligible for prizes include 

advancements in certain hydrogen components or systems, prototypes of hydrogen-powered vehicles and transformational changes 

in the technologies for hydrogen distribution or production. I comVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:35 Jun 06, 2007 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR172.XXX HR172

bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARING
27 

mend Mr. Inglis and Mr. Lipinski for introducing this legislation 

and I encourage my colleagues to support it. 

Once again, Mr. Chairman, I am happy to be supportive of these 

three bipartisan pieces of legislation. I look forward to working 

with you to advance these bills. 

I yield back my time, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RALPH M. HALL

Mr. Chairman, you and I have been working together for over 22 years now—and 

on the same side of the aisle for most of that time. Why, if it weren’t for me switching parties, you might not be the chairman right now! You can thank me later. . .. 

When you work with someone as long as we have, not only on this committee, but 

also on the Commerce Committee, there are bound to be times when we’re going 

to disagree, and as much as I dislike going against my good friend from Tennessee, 

sometimes it just happens. As it turns out, today is one of those days. While I commend my friend for his efforts on behalf of boosting energy R&D, I disagree with 

the way H.R. 364 does it. I have to say that I have a problem with the idea of creating a new bureaucracy within the Department of Energy that will, regardless of 

intention, fight for money with existing and future programs at DOE. With the tight 

budget parameters we are working with, I am not comfortable authorizing the creation of ARPA–E based on a vague recommendation that was in the Gathering 

Storm report. 

The facts are that DOE currently has the authority to do ARPA-type projects, but 

DOE is woefully under funded. I am concerned that we could be faced with the problem of having both the Office of Science and ARPA–E under funded so that neither 

of them is operating at its full potential if we go forward with creating this new 

agency. Before we go forward with any ARPA-type projects, I would like the Section 

1821 study in EPACT to be completed that looks at the applicability of the DARPA 

management 

practices and the advisability of creating a DARPA-type agency within DOE before moving forward with legislation. To that end I will be introducing an amendment that, without creating a new bureaucracy, would require the Secretary of Energy to identify and accelerate advanced research projects at the DOE that will address our energy needs. I, along with several of my colleagues, have sent a letter 

to the Secretary urging him to complete the study as mandated by law so that we 

all may benefit from its recommendations. In addition, in the letter we also ask the 

Secretary to appoint the Technology Transfer Coordinator and establish the Technology Transfer Working Group. As several of our witnesses testified to in our Subcommittee hearing, technology transfer plays an integral part in the process from 

basic research to widespread commercialization. 

I don’t think anyone would dispute that our country needs clean, affordable, reliable energy that is generated through research and development. This committee 

should continue to advance legislation that addresses our most critical energy needs 

in a fiscally responsible manner. To that end, I will be introducing legislation by 

the end of this week that will help accomplish these goals. 

In addition to the ARPA–E legislation we will also be marking up H.R. 1467, H.R. 

1716, and H.R. 632. I am an original co-sponsor of H.R. 1467, the 10,000 Trained 

by 2010 Act, and am supportive of the primary goal it seeks to achieve. If implemented correctly and efficiently, health information technology (IT) can revolutionize our health care system. But, we must have an educated workforce, properly 

trained in health IT, in order for it to be successful. This is what H.R. 1467 is about. 

NSF is already doing work yeoman’s work in the IT arena, but this measure will 

increase the focus on health IT. I encourage my colleagues to support it. 

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1716, the Green Energy Education Act of 

2007, introduced my fellow Texan, Mr. McCaul. This is a good piece of legislation 

that was voted out of this committee in the last Congress. The fact that it is also 

being included in larger energy packages on both sides of the aisle in this Congress 

indicates its overwhelming support. Simply put, this measure encourages the Department of Energy to work with the National Science Foundation to help develop 

the next generation of engineers and architects to work effectively together to 

produce buildings that incorporate the latest in energy efficient technologies. I commend Mr. McCaul for his fine work on this bill. 

Finally, I also urge my colleagues to support H.R. 632, the H–Prize Act sponsored 

by Inglis and Lipinski. This legislation was introduced in the last Congress and 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARING
28 

passed overwhelmingly by the House of Representatives. The bill directs the Secretary of Energy to award competitive cash prizes biennially to advance the research, development, demonstration, and commercial application of hydrogen energy 

technologies. Categories eligible for prizes include advancements in certain hydrogen components or systems, prototypes of hydrogen-powered vehicles, and transformational changes in technologies for hydrogen distribution or production. I commend Mr. Inglis and Mr. Lipinski for introducing this legislation, and I encourage 

my colleagues to support it. 

Once again, Mr. Chairman, I am happy to be supportive of these three bipartisan 

pieces of legislation and look forward to working with you to advance these bills. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Hall. As you have pointed 

out, we have had a good working relationship and I will point out 

that every bill that has come out of this committee has been unanimous and the only—one bill received 21 negative votes on the 

Floor. That is the worst we have done on the Floor. We are going 

to have I hope three unanimous bills today and I think the reason 

that we have been able to do this is, we have started with good 

bills. We have had extensive consultation and by making better 

bills. At the end of the day we are going to have our first disagreement but I think two things will happen: We are going to have 

amendments today that will make the bill even better and I think 

at the end of the day that it will be a bipartisan bill but it won’t 

be a unanimous bill, and we will try to proceed without kicking or 

scratching and we will get this done. So without objection, Members may place statements in the record at this point. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mitchell follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE HARRY E. MITCHELL

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Today we are considering several bills to decrease our dependence on foreign oil 

and encourage renewable sources of energy. 

As the world leader in emissions of greenhouse gasses, it is imperative that we 

as a nation actively pursue the means to reduce those emissions. We have an obligation to lead the world toward a solution. One way to accomplish this is to invest 

in alternative energy sources. 

The bills before us today would put in place necessary components to take us 

where we need to be as a nation including education and training, monetary incentives, and fast acting, responsive research programs. 

The United States must lead by example and invest in clean, renewable energy 

sources. 

Today, we are considering several bills to address this issue and I look forward 

to working on them. 

Sustainable energy is an issue that affects our environment, our economy, and our 

national security, and we cannot leave this problem for future generations of Americans to solve. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman GORDON. We will now consider H.R. 1467, the 10,000 

Trained by 2010 Act. I yield to the Chairman of Technology and Innovation Subcommittee, Mr. Wu, five minutes to describe the bill. 

Mr. WU. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We have had a 

busy morning, and I shall be as quick as possible. 

All the Members of this committee and I have been working on 

the issue of health care IT for two years. The genesis of H.R. 1467 

was a round table I held in Oregon in August of 2005. This round 

table was followed by an Environment Standards and Technology 

Subcommittee field hearing on health care information technology 

in February of 2006. Representative Reichert chaired the hearing, 

and Ranking Member Hall also had staff in attendance. 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARING
29 

One of the common issues raised at both of these events was the 

lack of training for folks who are experts in both health care and 

in IT. Despite the federal focus on developing a national electronic 

health care record system, there is no systematic plan for the training of current and prospective professionals in both health care and 

in IT. And without this, without folks who are expert in both fields, 

we run a serious risk of having boxes and software sit on desks 

unlit and unused. The need for individuals to manage health care 

IT is expected to grow 49 percent between 2000, and 2010, and 

nearly 75 percent of health care organizations indicate there are 

not enough qualified applicants to fill open health care management positions. H.R. 1467 is intended to keep the lights on at these 

organizations and focus on addressing the specific educational gap. 

I would like to point out the Science and Technology Committee 

has a history of developing specific training and research programs 

for IT professionals. During the 107th Congress the Committee became concerned that the lack of specialized computer security 

training for IT students and professionals was a contributing factor 

in the lack of good computer security practices and software. As a 

result, this committee developed and moved H.R. 3394, the Cyber 

Security Research and Development Act, which vested such programs at the National Science Foundation and subsequently became Public Law 107–305. 

H.R. 1467 consists of four components. It authorizes the National 

Science Foundation to award research grants for innovative approaches to enhancing software informatics. I want to make clear 

and emphasize that this provision builds upon existing NSF activities. It authorizes NSF to support multi-disciplinary health and 

medical informatics research centers to perform research and to 

train qualified health care informatics personnel and professionals. 

It authorizes NSF to establish a grant program to improve undergraduate, masters, and certificate programs in health care 

informatics. The goal is to increase the number of students and the 

quality of their training in the field. This program allows both fouryear and two-year institutions to participate as well as allowing for 

the development of continuing education curricula. 

And finally, it authorizes NSF’s Advanced Technology Education 

Program which focuses solely on two-year colleges to support improved education and technical training for health care informatics. 

H.R. 1467 is a bipartisan product of this committee. Then Chairman Hall and I introduced this bill in the last Congress. This Congress we reintroduced this bill along with Chairman Gordon and 

Ranking Member Gingrey of the Technology and Innovation Subcommittee. I have spoken to Dr. Gingrey about health care IT, and 

he knows firsthand the challenges involved in integrating IT into 

medical settings. We all recognize the benefits that an integrated 

health care IT network could provide in terms of improved patient 

care, safety, privacy, and potential cost savings. 

However, investment and physical infrastructure, software, and 

technology alone is not enough. We need research and to train 

health care and IT professionals to use and design the resulting 

systems well. 

And with that I yield back the balance of my time. 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARING
30 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Wu. It is not much, but seriously, thank you for your work in bringing this to us. I know you 

have been very tenacious about this, very committed to this, and 

we thank you. 

And now I recognize Mr. Hall for any remarks. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, as Mr. Wu has stated, several of us 

here, I am included in that, are original co-sponsors on this. We 

urge the adoption of it. 

And I recognize Mr. Gingrey. I yield to Mr. Gingrey the rest of 

my time. 

Mr. GINGREY. I thank the distinguished Ranking Member for 

yielding. 

Mr. Chairman, let me just say that Chairman Wu pretty much 

summarized it. This issue of health information technology, electronic medical records, the President is right in calling for fully-integrated system by the year 2014, hopefully before then, and there 

was a Rand study, Mr. Chairman, that estimated that $160 billion 

a year could be saved from health care costs. We are spending 

about $2 trillion I think on an annual basis for health care. 

As we all know, probably 65, 70 percent of that is Federal Government spending through our military and veterans and Medicare, Medicaid, and the CHIP Program, so this is hugely important. 

I am proud to be a co-sponsor and working with David and you, 

Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Hall. 

So I will yield back, but I just want to enthusiastically support 

the bill 1467. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Gingrey. You are correct. 

There can be billions of dollars of savings here, but let me point 

out that we can’t have the savings, we won’t need the technicians 

until we have inter-operability and until we have patient security, 

and that is what our bill 2406 will provide. So these are going to 

work good together, and I look forward to working with you on 

that. 

Does anyone else wish to be recognized? 

I ask unanimous consent that the bill is considered as read and 

open to amendment at any point, and that the Members proceed 

with the amendments in the order of the roster. Without objection 

so ordered. 

Are there any amendments? Hearing none, the vote is on the bill, 

H.R. 1467. All those in favor will say aye. All those opposed will 

say no. In the opinion of the Chair the ayes have it. 

I recognize Mr. Hall to offer a motion. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee favorably 

report H.R. 1467 to the House with the recommendation that the 

bill do pass. Furthermore, I move that staff be instructed to make 

necessary technical and conforming changes and that the Chairman take all the necessary steps to bring the bill before the House 

for consideration. 

I yield back. 

Chairman GORDON. The question is on the motion to report the 

bill favorably. Those in favor of the motion will signify by saying 

aye. Opposed no. The ayes have it. The bill is reported favorably. 

Without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. 

I move that Members have two subsequent calendar days in which 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARING
31 

to submit supplemental, minority, or additional views on the measure. 

I move pursuant to Clause 1 of Rule 22 of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives that the Committee authorize the Chairman to 

offer such motions as may be necessary in the House to adopt and 

pass H.R. 1467, the 10,000 Train by 2010 Act. 

Without objection, so ordered. Congratulations, Mr. Wu and Mr. 

Gingrey. 

Many thanks to everyone, and I want to conclude this markup. 

[Whereupon, at 1:00 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARING

bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARING
(33) 

A P P E N D I X 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF H.R. 1467 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARING
34 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARINGhr1467a.eps
35 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARINGhr1467b.eps
36 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARINGhr1467c.eps
37 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARINGhr1467d.eps
38 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARINGhr1467e.eps
39 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARINGhr1467f.eps
40 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARINGhr1467g.eps
41 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARINGhr1467h.eps
42 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARINGhr1467i.eps
43 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARINGhr1467j.eps
44 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARINGhr1467k.eps
45 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARINGhr1467l.eps
46 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF H.R. 1467, 

10,000 TRAINED BY 2010 ACT

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE—10,000 Trained by 2010 Act. 

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

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

SEC. 4. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION RESEARCH—Authorizes NSF to 

award grants to institutions of higher education for research on innovative approaches to enhancing health care informatics through hardware and software solutions. The focus of this research would be in the area of clinical/health care 

informatics, public health/population informatics, translational informatics, and privacy and confidentiality. Authorizes NSF to award grants to institutions of higher 

education to establish multi-disciplinary centers for Health and Medical Informatics 

Research Centers. Applicants may partner with government laboratories and/or forprofit institutions. These centers are designed to advance the research agenda and 

to train additional qualified health care informatics personnel and professionals—

which would include physicians, nurses, information technology specialists, medical 

administrators and social scientists. Instructs NSF to convene an annual meeting 

of Center investigators to facilitate information exchange. 

SEC. 5. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION INFORMATION PROGRAMS— 

Authorizes NSF to establish a program to award grants to institutions of higher 

education to establish or improve undergraduate and Master’s degree programs, as 

well as certificate programs in health care informatics, to increase the number of 

students who pursue studies in fields related to health care informatics and to provide students with experience in government or the private sector related to their 

health care informatics studies. Funds may be used for curriculum development, faculty development, equipment acquisition, student recruitment and/or the establishment of bridge programs with two-year colleges and industry internship programs 

for students. The provision encourages the use of distance learning when appropriate. Finally, authorizes NSF to expand the activities of the Advanced Technological Education program (centered on two-year institutions), established under the 

Scientific and Advanced Technology Act of 1992, to support improved education and 

technical training in fields related to health care informatics. 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARING