" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

111TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

111–478 

AMERICA COMPETES REAUTHORIZATION 

ACT OF 2010 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE 

AND TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ON

H.R. 5116 

together with 

ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

MAY 7, 2010.—Ordered to be printed 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGE:\Seals\Congress.#13
AMERICA COMPETES REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2010 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

56–313 

" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

111TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

2010

111–478 

AMERICA COMPETES REAUTHORIZATION 

ACT OF 2010 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE 

AND TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ON

H.R. 5116 

together with 

ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

MAY 7, 2010.—Ordered to be printed 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGE:\Seals\Congress.#13

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

I. Bill ................................................................................................................ 65 

II. Purpose of the Bill ...................................................................................... 65 

III. Background and Need for the Legislation ................................................ 65 

IV. Hearing Summary ....................................................................................... 72 

V. Committee Actions ...................................................................................... 81 

VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill, as Reported ............................ 90 

VII. Section-by-Section Analysis, as Reported .................................................. 91 

VIII. Committee Views ........................................................................................ 108 

IX. Cost Estimate .............................................................................................. 129 

X. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ............................................. 129 

XI. Compliance with Public Law 104–4 .......................................................... 134 

XII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations ........................... 134 

XIII. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives ...................... 134 

XIV. Constitutional Authority Statement .......................................................... 135 

XV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement ................................................... 135 

XVI. Congressional Accountability Act .............................................................. 135 

XVII. Earmark Identification ............................................................................... 135 

XVIII. Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law ........................ 135 

XIX. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ........................ 135 

XX. Committee Recommendations .................................................................... 203 

XXI. Exchange of Committee Correspondence .................................................. 204 

XXII. Additional Views ......................................................................................... 207 

XXIII. Proceedings of the Subcommittee Markups .............................................. 215 

a. Subcommittee on Energy and Environment ......................................... 241 

b. Subcommittee on Research and Science Education ............................. 343 

c. Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation ...................................... 448 

XXIV. Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup ............................................. 511 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
111TH CONGRESS REPT. 111–478 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session Part 1 

AMERICA COMPETES REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2010 

MAY 7, 2010.—Ordered to be printed 

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

Technology, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 5116] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Science and Technology, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 5116) to invest in innovation through research 

and development, to improve the competitiveness of the United 

States, and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports 

favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that the 

bill as amended do pass. 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010’’. 

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for this Act is as follows: 

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. 

TITLE I—SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY 

Subtitle A—National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments 

Sec. 101. Short title. 

Sec. 102. National nanotechnology program amendments. 

Sec. 103. Societal dimensions of nanotechnology. 

Sec. 104. Technology transfer. 

Sec. 105. Research in areas of national importance. 

Sec. 106. Nanomanufacturing research. 

Sec. 107. Definitions. 

Subtitle B—Networking and Information Technology Research and Development 

Sec. 111. Short title. 

Sec. 112. Program planning and coordination. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
2 

Sec. 113. Large-scale research in areas of national importance. 

Sec. 114. Cyber-physical systems and information management. 

Sec. 115. National Coordination Office. 

Sec. 116. Improving networking and information technology education. 

Sec. 117. Conforming and technical amendments. 

Subtitle C—Other OSTP Provisions 

Sec. 121. Federal scientific collections. 

Sec. 122. Coordination of manufacturing research and development. 

Sec. 123. Interagency public access committee. 

Sec. 124. Fulfilling the potential of women in academic science and engineering. 

TITLE II—NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Sec. 201. Short title. 

Subtitle A—General Provisions 

Sec. 211. Definitions. 

Sec. 212. Authorization of appropriations. 

Sec. 213. National Science Board administrative amendments. 

Sec. 214. Broader impacts review criterion. 

Sec. 215. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. 

Sec. 216. Collection of data on demographics of faculty. 

Subtitle B—Research and Innovation 

Sec. 221. Support for potentially transformative research. 

Sec. 222. Facilitating interdisciplinary collaborations for national needs. 

Sec. 223. National Science Foundation manufacturing research and education. 

Sec. 224. Strengthening institutional research partnerships. 

Sec. 225. National Science Board report on mid-scale instrumentation. 

Sec. 226. Sense of Congress on overall support for research infrastructure at the Foundation. 

Sec. 227. Partnerships for innovation. 

Sec. 228. Prize awards. 

Subtitle C—STEM Education and Workforce Training 

Sec. 241. Graduate student support. 

Sec. 242. Postdoctoral fellowship in STEM education research. 

Sec. 243. Robert Noyce teacher scholarship program. 

Sec. 244. Institutions serving persons with disabilities. 

Sec. 245. Institutional integration. 

Sec. 246. Postdoctoral research fellowships. 

Sec. 247. Broadening participation training and outreach. 

Sec. 248. Transforming undergraduate education in STEM. 

Sec. 249. 21st century graduate education. 

Sec. 250. Undergraduate broadening participation program. 

Sec. 251. Grand challenges in education research. 

Sec. 252. Research experiences for undergraduates. 

Sec. 253. Laboratory science pilot program. 

Sec. 254. STEM industry internship programs. 

Sec. 255. Tribal colleges and universities program. 

TITLE III—STEM EDUCATION 

Sec. 301. Coordination of Federal STEM education. 

Sec. 302. Advisory committee on STEM education. 

Sec. 303. STEM education at the Department of Energy. 

Sec. 304. Green energy education. 

TITLE IV—NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY 

Sec. 401. Short title. 

Sec. 402. Authorization of appropriations. 

Sec. 403. Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology. 

Sec. 404. Reorganization of NIST laboratories. 

Sec. 405. Federal Government standards and conformity assessment coordination. 

Sec. 406. Manufacturing extension partnership. 

Sec. 407. Bioscience research program. 

Sec. 408. Emergency communication and tracking technologies research initiative. 

Sec. 409. TIP Advisory Board. 

Sec. 410. Underrepresented minorities. 

Sec. 411. Cyber security standards and guidelines. 

Sec. 412. Definitions. 

TITLE V—INNOVATION 

Sec. 501. Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship. 

Sec. 502. Federal loan guarantees for innovative technologies in manufacturing. 

Sec. 503. Regional innovation program. 

TITLE VI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Subtitle A—Office of Science 

Sec. 601. Short title. 

Sec. 602. Definitions. 

Sec. 603. Mission of the Office of Science. 

Sec. 604. Basic Energy Sciences Program. 

Sec. 605. Biological and Environmental Research Program. 

Sec. 606. Advanced Scientific Computing Research Program. 

Sec. 607. Fusion energy research program. 

Sec. 608. High Energy Physics Program. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
3 

Sec. 609. Nuclear Physics Program. 

Sec. 610. Science Laboratories Infrastructure Program. 

Sec. 611. Authorization of appropriations. 

Subtitle B—Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy 

Sec. 621. Short title. 

Sec. 622. ARPA-E amendments. 

Subtitle C—Energy Innovation Hubs 

Sec. 631. Short title. 

Sec. 632. Energy Innovation Hubs. 

Subtitle D—Cooperative Research and Development Fund 

Sec. 641. Short title. 

Sec. 642. Cooperative research and development fund. 

TITLE VII—MISCELLANEOUS 

Sec. 701. Sense of Congress. 

Sec. 702. Persons with disabilities. 

Sec. 703. Veterans and service members. 

TITLE I—SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY 

Subtitle A—National Nanotechnology Initiative 

Amendments 

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE. 

This subtitle may be cited as the ‘‘National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2010’’. 

SEC. 102. NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY PROGRAM AMENDMENTS. 

The 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (15 U.S.C. 7501 

et seq.) is amended— 

(1) by striking section 2(c)(4) and inserting the following new paragraph: 

‘‘(4) develop, within 12 months after the date of enactment of the National 

Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2010, and update every 3 years 

thereafter, a strategic plan to guide the activities described under subsection (b) 

that specifies near-term and long-term objectives for the Program, the anticipated time frame for achieving the near-term objectives, and the metrics to be 

used for assessing progress toward the objectives, and that describes— 

‘‘(A) how the Program will move results out of the laboratory and into applications for the benefit of society, including through cooperation and collaborations with nanotechnology research, development, and technology 

transition initiatives supported by the States; 

‘‘(B) how the Program will encourage and support interdisciplinary research and development in nanotechnology; and 

‘‘(C) proposed research in areas of national importance in accordance with 

the requirements of section 105 of the National Nanotechnology Initiative 

Amendments Act of 2010;’’; 

(2) in section 2— 

(A) in subsection (d)— 

(i) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (5) as paragraphs (2) 

through (6), respectively; and 

(ii) by inserting the following new paragraph before paragraph (2), as 

so redesignated by clause (i) of this subparagraph: 

‘‘(1) the Program budget, for the previous fiscal year, for each agency that 

participates in the Program, including a breakout of spending for the development and acquisition of research facilities and instrumentation, for each program component area, and for all activities pursuant to subsection (b)(10);’’; and 

(B) by inserting at the end the following new subsection: 

‘‘(e) STANDARDS SETTING.—The agencies participating in the Program shall support the activities of committees involved in the development of standards for nanotechnology and may reimburse the travel costs of scientists and engineers who participate in activities of such committees.’’; 

(3) by striking section 3(b) and inserting the following new subsection: 

‘‘(b) FUNDING.—(1) The operation of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office shall be supported by funds from each agency participating in the Program. The 

portion of such Office’s total budget provided by each agency for each fiscal year 

shall be in the same proportion as the agency’s share of the total budget for the 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
4 

Program for the previous fiscal year, as specified in the report required under section 2(d)(1). 

‘‘(2) The annual report under section 2(d) shall include— 

‘‘(A) a description of the funding required by the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office to perform the functions specified under subsection (a) for the 

next fiscal year by category of activity, including the funding required to carry 

out the requirements of section 2(b)(10)(D), subsection (d) of this section, and 

section 5; 

‘‘(B) a description of the funding required by such Office to perform the functions specified under subsection (a) for the current fiscal year by category of activity, including the funding required to carry out the requirements of subsection (d); and 

‘‘(C) the amount of funding provided for such Office for the current fiscal year 

by each agency participating in the Program.’’; 

(4) by inserting at the end of section 3 the following new subsection: 

‘‘(d) PUBLIC INFORMATION.—(1) The National Nanotechnology Coordination Office 

shall develop and maintain a database accessible by the public of projects funded 

under the Environmental, Health, and Safety, the Education and Societal Dimensions, and the Nanomanufacturing program component areas, or any successor program component areas, including a description of each project, its source of funding 

by agency, and its funding history. For the Environmental, Health, and Safety program component area, or any successor program component area, projects shall be 

grouped by major objective as defined by the research plan required under section 

103(b) of the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2010. For the 

Education and Societal Dimensions program component area, or any successor program component area, the projects shall be grouped in subcategories of— 

‘‘(A) education in formal settings; 

‘‘(B) education in informal settings; 

‘‘(C) public outreach; and 

‘‘(D) ethical, legal, and other societal issues. 

‘‘(2) The National Nanotechnology Coordination Office shall develop, maintain, 

and publicize information on nanotechnology facilities supported under the Program, 

and may include information on nanotechnology facilities supported by the States, 

that are accessible for use by individuals from academic institutions and from industry. The information shall include at a minimum the terms and conditions for the 

use of each facility, a description of the capabilities of the instruments and equipment available for use at the facility, and a description of the technical support 

available to assist users of the facility.’’; 

(5) in section 4(a)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘or designate’’; 

(B) by inserting ‘‘as a distinct entity’’ after ‘‘Advisory Panel’’; and 

(C) by inserting at the end ‘‘The Advisory Panel shall form a subpanel 

with membership having specific qualifications tailored to enable it to carry 

out the requirements of subsection (c)(7).’’; 

(6) in section 4(b)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘or designated’’ and ‘‘or designating’’; and 

(B) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘At least one member of the Advisory Panel shall be an individual employed by and representing a minorityserving institution.’’; 

(7) by amending section 5 to read as follows: 

‘‘SEC. 5. TRIENNIAL EXTERNAL REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY PROGRAM. 

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office shall enter into an arrangement with the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a triennial review of the Program. The Director shall ensure that the arrangement with the National Research Council is concluded in order to allow sufficient time for the reporting requirements of subsection 

(b) to be satisfied. Each triennial review shall include an evaluation of the— 

‘‘(1) research priorities and technical content of the Program, including whether the allocation of funding among program component areas, as designated according to section 2(c)(2), is appropriate; 

‘‘(2) effectiveness of the Program’s management and coordination across agencies and disciplines, including an assessment of the effectiveness of the National 

Nanotechnology Coordination Office; 

‘‘(3) Program’s scientific and technological accomplishments and its success in 

transferring technology to the private sector; and 

‘‘(4) adequacy of the Program’s activities addressing ethical, legal, environmental, and other appropriate societal concerns, including human health concerns. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
5 

‘‘(b) EVALUATION TO BE TRANSMITTED TO CONGRESS.—The National Research 

Council shall document the results of each triennial review carried out in accordance with subsection (a) in a report that includes any recommendations for ways 

to improve the Program’s management and coordination processes and for changes 

to the Program’s objectives, funding priorities, and technical content. Each report 

shall be submitted to the Director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, who shall transmit it to the Advisory Panel, the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation of the Senate, and the Committee on Science and Technology of the House of Representatives not later than September 30 of every third 

year, with the first report due September 30, 2010. 

‘‘(c) FUNDING.—Of the amounts provided in accordance with section 3(b)(1), the 

following amounts shall be available to carry out this section: 

‘‘(1) $500,000 for fiscal year 2010. 

‘‘(2) $500,000 for fiscal year 2011. 

‘‘(3) $500,000 for fiscal year 2012.’’; and 

(8) in section 10— 

(A) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows: 

‘‘(2) NANOTECHNOLOGY.—The term ‘nanotechnology’ means the science and 

technology that will enable one to understand, measure, manipulate, and manufacture at the nanoscale, aimed at creating materials, devices, and systems with 

fundamentally new properties or functions.’’; and 

(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph: 

‘‘(7) NANOSCALE.—The term ‘nanoscale’ means one or more dimensions of between approximately 1 and 100 nanometers.’’. 

SEC. 103. SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS OF NANOTECHNOLOGY. 

(a) COORDINATOR FOR SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS OF NANOTECHNOLOGY.—The Director 

of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall designate an associate director 

of the Office of Science and Technology Policy as the Coordinator for Societal Dimensions of Nanotechnology. The Coordinator shall be responsible for oversight of 

the coordination, planning, and budget prioritization of activities required by section 

2(b)(10) of the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (15 

U.S.C. 7501(b)(10)). The Coordinator shall, with the assistance of appropriate senior 

officials of the agencies funding activities within the Environmental, Health, and 

Safety and the Education and Societal Dimensions program component areas of the 

Program, or any successor program component areas, ensure that the requirements 

of such section 2(b)(10) are satisfied. The responsibilities of the Coordinator shall 

include— 

(1) ensuring that a research plan for the environmental, health, and safety 

research activities required under subsection (b) is developed, updated, and implemented and that the plan is responsive to the recommendations of the 

subpanel of the Advisory Panel established under section 4(a) of the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (15 U.S.C. 7503(a)), as 

amended by this subtitle; 

(2) encouraging and monitoring the efforts of the agencies participating in the 

Program to allocate the level of resources and management attention necessary 

to ensure that the ethical, legal, environmental, and other appropriate societal 

concerns related to nanotechnology, including human health concerns, are addressed under the Program, including the implementation of the research plan 

described in subsection (b); and 

(3) encouraging the agencies required to develop the research plan under subsection (b) to identify, assess, and implement suitable mechanisms for the establishment of public-private partnerships for support of environmental, health, 

and safety research. 

(b) RESEARCH PLAN.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Coordinator for Societal Dimensions of Nanotechnology 

shall convene and chair a panel comprised of representatives from the agencies 

funding research activities under the Environmental, Health, and Safety program component area of the Program, or any successor program component 

area, and from such other agencies as the Coordinator considers necessary to 

develop, periodically update, and coordinate the implementation of a research 

plan for this program component area. In developing and updating the plan, the 

panel convened by the Coordinator shall solicit and be responsive to recommendations and advice from— 

(A) the subpanel of the Advisory Panel established under section 4(a) of 

the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (15 U.S.C. 

7503(a)), as amended by this subtitle; and 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
6 

(B) the agencies responsible for environmental, health, and safety regulations associated with the production, use, and disposal of nanoscale materials and products. 

(2) DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDS.—The plan required under paragraph (1) 

shall include a description of how the Program will help to ensure the development of— 

(A) standards related to nomenclature associated with engineered 

nanoscale materials; 

(B) engineered nanoscale standard reference materials for environmental, 

health, and safety testing; and 

(C) standards related to methods and procedures for detecting, measuring, monitoring, sampling, and testing engineered nanoscale materials for 

environmental, health, and safety impacts. 

(3) COMPONENTS OF PLAN.—The plan required under paragraph (1) shall, with 

respect to activities described in paragraphs (1) and (2)— 

(A) specify near-term research objectives and long-term research objectives; 

(B) specify milestones associated with each near-term objective and the 

estimated time and resources required to reach each milestone; 

(C) with respect to subparagraphs (A) and (B), describe the role of each 

agency carrying out or sponsoring research in order to meet the objectives 

specified under subparagraph (A) and to achieve the milestones specified 

under subparagraph (B); 

(D) specify the funding allocated to each major objective of the plan and 

the source of funding by agency for the current fiscal year; and 

(E) estimate the funding required for each major objective of the plan and 

the source of funding by agency for the following 3 fiscal years. 

(4) TRANSMITTAL TO CONGRESS.—The plan required under paragraph (1) shall 

be submitted not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act to 

the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the 

Committee on Science and Technology of the House of Representatives. 

(5) UPDATING AND APPENDING TO REPORT.—The plan required under paragraph (1) shall be updated annually and appended to the report required under 

section 2(d) of the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act 

(15 U.S.C. 7501(d)). 

(c) NANOTECHNOLOGY PARTNERSHIPS.— 

(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—As part of the program authorized by section 9 of the 

National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002, the Director of the National Science Foundation shall provide 1 or more grants to establish partnerships as defined by subsection (a)(2) of that section, except that each such partnership shall include 1 or more businesses engaged in the production of 

nanoscale materials, products, or devices. Partnerships established in accordance with this subsection shall be designated as ‘‘Nanotechnology Education 

Partnerships’’. 

(2) PURPOSE.—Nanotechnology Education Partnerships shall be designed to 

recruit and help prepare secondary school students to pursue postsecondary 

level courses of instruction in nanotechnology. At a minimum, grants shall be 

used to support— 

(A) professional development activities to enable secondary school teachers to use curricular materials incorporating nanotechnology and to inform 

teachers about career possibilities for students in nanotechnology; 

(B) enrichment programs for students, including access to nanotechnology 

facilities and equipment at partner institutions, to increase their understanding of nanoscale science and technology and to inform them about career possibilities in nanotechnology as scientists, engineers, and technicians; and 

(C) identification of appropriate nanotechnology educational materials 

and incorporation of nanotechnology into the curriculum for secondary 

school students at one or more organizations participating in a Partnership. 

(3) SELECTION.—Grants under this subsection shall be awarded in accordance 

with subsection (b) of such section 9, except that paragraph (3)(B) of that subsection shall not apply. 

(d) UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION PROGRAMS.— 

(1) ACTIVITIES SUPPORTED.—As part of the activities included under the Education and Societal Dimensions program component area, or any successor program component area, the Program shall support efforts to introduce nanoscale 

science, engineering, and technology into undergraduate science and engineering education through a variety of interdisciplinary approaches. Activities supported may include— 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
7 

(A) development of courses of instruction or modules to existing courses; 

(B) faculty professional development; and 

(C) acquisition of equipment and instrumentation suitable for undergraduate education and research in nanotechnology. 

(2) COURSE, CURRICULUM, AND LABORATORY IMPROVEMENT AUTHORIZATION.— 

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Director of the National Science 

Foundation to carry out activities described in paragraph (1) through the 

Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement program from amounts authorized under section 7002(c)(2)(B) of the America COMPETES Act, $5,000,000 

for fiscal year 2010. 

(3) ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION AUTHORIZATION.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Director of the National Science Foundation to 

carry out activities described in paragraph (1) through the Advanced Technology Education program from amounts authorized under section 7002(c)(2)(B) 

of the America COMPETES Act, $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2010. 

(e) INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP.—The National Science and Technology Council 

shall establish under the Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee an Education Working Group to coordinate, prioritize, and plan the educational activities supported under the Program. 

(f) SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS IN NANOTECHNOLOGY EDUCATION ACTIVITIES.—Activities 

supported under the Education and Societal Dimensions program component area, 

or any successor program component area, that involve informal, precollege, or undergraduate nanotechnology education shall include education regarding the environmental, health and safety, and other societal aspects of nanotechnology. 

(g) REMOTE ACCESS TO NANOTECHNOLOGY FACILITIES.—(1) Agencies supporting 

nanotechnology research facilities as part of the Program shall require the entities 

that operate such facilities to allow access via the Internet, and support the costs 

associated with the provision of such access, by secondary school students and 

teachers, to instruments and equipment within such facilities for educational purposes. The agencies may waive this requirement for cases when particular facilities 

would be inappropriate for educational purposes or the costs for providing such access would be prohibitive. 

(2) The agencies identified in paragraph (1) shall require the entities that operate 

such nanotechnology research facilities to establish and publish procedures, guidelines, and conditions for the submission and approval of applications for the use of 

the facilities for the purpose identified in paragraph (1) and shall authorize personnel who operate the facilities to provide necessary technical support to students 

and teachers. 

SEC. 104. TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER. 

(a) PROTOTYPING.— 

(1) ACCESS TO FACILITIES.—In accordance with section 2(b)(7) of 21st Century 

Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (15 U.S.C. 7501(b)(7)), the 

agencies supporting nanotechnology research facilities as part of the Program 

shall provide access to such facilities to companies for the purpose of assisting 

the companies in the development of prototypes of nanoscale products, devices, 

or processes (or products, devices, or processes enabled by nanotechnology) for 

determining proof of concept. The agencies shall publicize the availability of 

these facilities and encourage their use by companies as provided for in this section. 

(2) PROCEDURES.—The agencies identified in paragraph (1)— 

(A) shall establish and publish procedures, guidelines, and conditions for 

the submission and approval of applications for use of nanotechnology facilities; 

(B) shall publish descriptions of the capabilities of facilities available for 

use under this subsection, including the availability of technical support; 

and 

(C) may waive recovery, require full recovery, or require partial recovery 

of the costs associated with use of the facilities for projects under this subsection. 

(3) SELECTION AND CRITERIA.—In cases when less than full cost recovery is 

required pursuant to paragraph (2)(C), projects provided access to nanotechnology facilities in accordance with this subsection shall be selected through a competitive, merit-based process, and the criteria for the selection of such projects 

shall include at a minimum— 

(A) the readiness of the project for technology demonstration; 

(B) evidence of a commitment by the applicant for further development 

of the project to full commercialization if the proof of concept is established 

by the prototype; and 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
8 

(C) evidence of the potential for further funding from private sector 

sources following the successful demonstration of proof of concept. 

The agencies may give special consideration in selecting projects to applications 

that are relevant to important national needs or requirements. 

(b) USE OF EXISTING TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER PROGRAMS.— (1) PARTICIPATING AGENCIES.—Each agency participating in the Program 

shall— 

(A) encourage the submission of applications for support of nanotechnology related projects to the Small Business Innovation Research Program 

and the Small Business Technology Transfer Program administered by such 

agencies; and 

(B) through the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office and within 

6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, submit to the Committee 

on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Science and Technology of the House of Representatives— 

(i) the plan described in section 2(c)(7) of the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (15 U.S.C. 7501(c)(7)); and 

(ii) a report specifying, if the agency administers a Small Business 

Innovation Research Program and a Small Business Technology Transfer Program— 

(I) the number of proposals received for nanotechnology related 

projects during the current fiscal year and the previous 2 fiscal 

years; 

(II) the number of such proposals funded in each year; 

(III) the total number of nanotechnology related projects funded 

and the amount of funding provided for fiscal year 2004 through 

fiscal year 2008; and 

(IV) a description of the projects identified in accordance with 

subclause (III) which received private sector funding beyond the 

period of phase II support. 

(2) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY.—The Director of 

the National Institute of Standards and Technology in carrying out the requirements of section 28 of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act 

(15 U.S.C. 278n) shall— 

(A) in regard to subsection (d) of that section, encourage the submission 

of proposals for support of nanotechnology related projects; and 

(B) in regard to subsection (g) of that section, include a description of how 

the requirement of subparagraph (A) of this paragraph is being met, the 

number of proposals for nanotechnology related projects received, the number of such proposals funded, the total number of such projects funded since 

the beginning of the Technology Innovation Program, and the outcomes of 

such funded projects in terms of the metrics developed in accordance with 

such subsection (g). 

(3) TIP ADVISORY BOARD.—The TIP Advisory Board established under section 

28(k) of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 

278n(k)), in carrying out its responsibilities under subsection (k)(3), shall provide the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology with— 

(A) advice on how to accomplish the requirement of paragraph (2)(A) of 

this subsection; and 

(B) an assessment of the adequacy of the allocation of resources for nanotechnology related projects supported under the Technology Innovation Program. 

(c) INDUSTRY LIAISON GROUPS.—An objective of the Program shall be to establish 

industry liaison groups for all industry sectors that would benefit from applications 

of nanotechnology. The Nanomanufacturing, Industry Liaison, and Innovation 

Working Group of the National Science and Technology Council shall actively pursue establishing such liaison groups. 

(d) COORDINATION WITH STATE INITIATIVES.—Section 2(b)(5) of the 21st Century 

Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (15 U.S.C. 7501(b)(5)) is amended 

to read as follows: 

‘‘(5) ensuring United States global leadership in the development and application of nanotechnology, including through coordination and leveraging Federal 

investments with nanotechnology research, development, and technology transition initiatives supported by the States;’’. 

SEC. 105. RESEARCH IN AREAS OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Program shall include support for nanotechnology research 

and development activities directed toward application areas that have the potential 

for significant contributions to national economic competitiveness and for other sigVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
9 

nificant societal benefits. The activities supported shall be designed to advance the 

development of research discoveries by demonstrating technical solutions to important problems in such areas as nano-electronics, energy efficiency, health care, and 

water remediation and purification. The Advisory Panel shall make recommendations to the Program for candidate research and development areas for support 

under this section. 

(b) CHARACTERISTICS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Research and development activities under this section 

shall— 

(A) include projects selected on the basis of applications for support 

through a competitive, merit-based process; 

(B) involve collaborations among researchers in academic institutions and 

industry, and may involve nonprofit research institutions and Federal laboratories, as appropriate; 

(C) when possible, leverage Federal investments through collaboration 

with related State initiatives; and 

(D) include a plan for fostering the transfer of research discoveries and 

the results of technology demonstration activities to industry for commercial development. 

(2) PROCEDURES.—Determination of the requirements for applications under 

this subsection, review and selection of applications for support, and subsequent 

funding of projects shall be carried out by a collaboration of no fewer than 2 

agencies participating in the Program. In selecting applications for support, the 

agencies shall give special consideration to projects that include cost sharing 

from non-Federal sources. 

(3) INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH CENTERS.—Research and development activities under this section may be supported through interdisciplinary nanotechnology research centers, as authorized by section 2(b)(4) of the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (15 U.S.C. 7501(b)(4)), that are organized to investigate basic research questions and carry out technology demonstration activities in areas such as those identified in subsection (a). 

(c) REPORT.—Reports required under section 2(d) of the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (15 U.S.C. 7501(d)) shall include a description of research and development areas supported in accordance with this section, 

including the same budget information as is required for program component areas 

under paragraphs (1) and (2) of such section 2(d). 

SEC. 106. NANOMANUFACTURING RESEARCH. 

(a) RESEARCH AREAS.—The Nanomanufacturing program component area, or any 

successor program component area, shall include research on— 

(1) development of instrumentation and tools required for the rapid characterization of nanoscale materials and for monitoring of nanoscale manufacturing 

processes; and 

(2) approaches and techniques for scaling the synthesis of new nanoscale materials to achieve industrial-level production rates. 

(b) GREEN NANOTECHNOLOGY.—Interdisciplinary research centers supported 

under the Program in accordance with section 2(b)(4) of the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (15 U.S.C. 7501(b)(4)) that are focused on 

nanomanufacturing research and centers established under the authority of section 

105(b)(3) of this subtitle shall include as part of the activities of such centers— 

(1) research on methods and approaches to develop environmentally benign 

nanoscale products and nanoscale manufacturing processes, taking into consideration relevant findings and results of research supported under the Environmental, Health, and Safety program component area, or any successor program 

component area; 

(2) fostering the transfer of the results of such research to industry; and 

(3) providing for the education of scientists and engineers through interdisciplinary studies in the principles and techniques for the design and development of environmentally benign nanoscale products and processes. 

(c) REVIEW OF NANOMANUFACTURING RESEARCH AND RESEARCH FACILITIES.— 

(1) PUBLIC MEETING.—Not later than 12 months after the date of enactment 

of this Act, the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office shall sponsor a 

public meeting, including representation from a wide range of industries engaged in nanoscale manufacturing, to— 

(A) obtain the views of participants at the meeting on— 

(i) the relevance and value of the research being carried out under 

the Nanomanufacturing program component area of the Program, or 

any successor program component area; and 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
10 

(ii) whether the capabilities of nanotechnology research facilities supported under the Program are adequate— 

(I) to meet current and near-term requirements for the fabrication and characterization of nanoscale devices and systems; and 

(II) to provide access to and use of instrumentation and equipment at the facilities, by means of networking technology, to individuals who are at locations remote from the facilities; and 

(B) receive any recommendations on ways to strengthen the research 

portfolio supported under the Nanomanufacturing program component area, 

or any successor program component area, and on improving the capabilities of nanotechnology research facilities supported under the Program. 

Companies participating in industry liaison groups shall be invited to participate in the meeting. The Coordination Office shall prepare a report documenting the findings and recommendations resulting from the meeting. 

(2) ADVISORY PANEL REVIEW.—The Advisory Panel shall review the Nanomanufacturing program component area of the Program, or any successor program component area, and the capabilities of nanotechnology research facilities 

supported under the Program to assess— 

(A) whether the funding for the Nanomanufacturing program component 

area, or any successor program component area, is adequate and receiving 

appropriate priority within the overall resources available for the Program; 

(B) the relevance of the research being supported to the identified needs 

and requirements of industry; 

(C) whether the capabilities of nanotechnology research facilities supported under the Program are adequate— 

(i) to meet current and near-term requirements for the fabrication 

and characterization of nanoscale devices and systems; and 

(ii) to provide access to and use of instrumentation and equipment 

at the facilities, by means of networking technology, to individuals who 

are at locations remote from the facilities; and 

(D) the level of funding that would be needed to support— 

(i) the acquisition of instrumentation, equipment, and networking 

technology sufficient to provide the capabilities at nanotechnology research facilities described in subparagraph (C); and 

(ii) the operation and maintenance of such facilities. 

In carrying out its assessment, the Advisory Panel shall take into consideration 

the findings and recommendations from the report required under paragraph 

(1). 

(3) REPORT.—Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this 

Act, the Advisory Panel shall submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 

and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Science and Technology 

of the House of Representatives a report on its assessment required under paragraph (2), along with any recommendations and a copy of the report prepared 

in accordance with paragraph (1). 

SEC. 107. DEFINITIONS. 

In this subtitle, terms that are defined in section 10 of the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (15 U.S.C. 7509) have the meaning given 

those terms in that section. 

Subtitle B—Networking and Information 

Technology Research and Development 

SEC. 111. SHORT TITLE. 

This subtitle may be cited as the ‘‘Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act of 2010’’. 

SEC. 112. PROGRAM PLANNING AND COORDINATION. 

(a) PERIODIC REVIEWS.—Section 101 of the High-Performance Computing Act of 

1991 (15 U.S.C. 5511) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: 

‘‘(d) PERIODIC REVIEWS.—The agencies identified in subsection (a)(3)(B) shall— 

‘‘(1) periodically assess the contents and funding levels of the Program Component Areas and restructure the Program when warranted, taking into consideration any relevant recommendations of the advisory committee established 

under subsection (b); and 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
11 

‘‘(2) ensure that the Program includes large-scale, long-term, interdisciplinary 

research and development activities, including activities described in section 

104.’’. 

(b) DEVELOPMENT OF STRATEGIC PLAN.—Section 101 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 5511) 

is amended further by adding after subsection (d), as added by subsection (a) of this 

section, the following new subsection: 

‘‘(e) STRATEGIC PLAN.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The agencies identified in subsection (a)(3)(B), working 

through the National Science and Technology Council and with the assistance 

of the National Coordination Office established under section 102, shall develop, 

within 12 months after the date of enactment of the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act of 2010, and update every 3 

years thereafter, a 5-year strategic plan to guide the activities described under 

subsection (a)(1). 

‘‘(2) CONTENTS.—The strategic plan shall specify near-term and long-term objectives for the Program, the anticipated time frame for achieving the near-term 

objectives, the metrics to be used for assessing progress toward the objectives, 

and how the Program will— 

‘‘(A) foster the transfer of research and development results into new 

technologies and applications for the benefit of society, including through 

cooperation and collaborations with networking and information technology 

research, development, and technology transition initiatives supported by 

the States; 

‘‘(B) encourage and support mechanisms for interdisciplinary research 

and development in networking and information technology, including 

through collaborations across agencies, across Program Component Areas, 

with industry, with Federal laboratories (as defined in section 4 of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3703)), and 

with international organizations; 

‘‘(C) address long-term challenges of national importance for which solutions require large-scale, long-term, interdisciplinary research and development; 

‘‘(D) place emphasis on innovative and high-risk projects having the potential for substantial societal returns on the research investment; 

‘‘(E) strengthen all levels of networking and information technology education and training programs to ensure an adequate, well-trained workforce; and 

‘‘(F) attract more women and underrepresented minorities to pursue postsecondary degrees in networking and information technology. 

‘‘(3) NATIONAL RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE.—The strategic plan developed in accordance with paragraph (1) shall be accompanied by milestones and roadmaps for 

establishing and maintaining the national research infrastructure required to support the Program, including the roadmap required by subsection (a)(2)(E). 

‘‘(4) RECOMMENDATIONS.—The entities involved in developing the strategic plan 

under paragraph (1) shall take into consideration the recommendations— 

‘‘(A) of the advisory committee established under subsection (b); and 

‘‘(B) of the stakeholders whose input was solicited by the National Coordination Office, as required under section 102(b)(3). 

‘‘(5) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—The Director of the National Coordination Office shall 

transmit the strategic plan required under paragraph (1) to the advisory committee, 

the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate, and the 

Committee on Science and Technology of the House of Representatives.’’. 

(c) ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF DIRECTOR.—Section 101(a)(2) of such Act (15 

U.S.C. 5511(a)(2)) is amended— 

(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (E) and (F) as subparagraphs (F) and (G), 

respectively; and 

(2) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following new subparagraph: 

‘‘(E) encourage and monitor the efforts of the agencies participating in the 

Program to allocate the level of resources and management attention necessary to ensure that the strategic plan under subsection (e) is developed 

and executed effectively and that the objectives of the Program are met;’’. 

(d) ADVISORY COMMITTEE.—Section 101(b)(1) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 5511(b)(1)) is 

amended by inserting after ‘‘an advisory committee on high-performance computing,’’ the following: ‘‘in which the co-chairs shall be members of the President’s 

Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and with the remainder of the committee’’. 

(e) REPORT.—Section 101(a)(3) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 5511(a)(3)) is amended— 

(1) in subparagraph (C)— 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
12 

(A) by striking ‘‘is submitted,’’ and inserting ‘‘is submitted, the levels for 

the previous fiscal year,’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘each Program Component Area;’’ and inserting ‘‘each Program Component Area and research area supported in accordance with section 104;’’; 

(2) in subparagraph (D)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘each Program Component Area,’’ and inserting ‘‘each Program Component Area and research area supported in accordance with section 104,’’; 

(B) by striking ‘‘is submitted,’’ and inserting ‘‘is submitted, the levels for 

the previous fiscal year,’’; and 

(C) by striking ‘‘and’’ after the semicolon; 

(3) by redesignating subparagraph (E) as subparagraph (G); and 

(4) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following new subparagraphs: 

‘‘(E) include a description of how the objectives for each Program Component Area, and the objectives for activities that involve multiple Program 

Component Areas, relate to the objectives of the Program identified in the 

strategic plan required under subsection (e); 

‘‘(F) include— 

‘‘(i) a description of the funding required by the National Coordination Office to perform the functions specified under section 102(b) for 

the next fiscal year by category of activity; 

‘‘(ii) a description of the funding required by such Office to perform 

the functions specified under section 102(b) for the current fiscal year 

by category of activity; and 

‘‘(iii) the amount of funding provided for such Office for the current 

fiscal year by each agency participating in the Program; and’’. 

(f) DEFINITION.—Section 4 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 5503) is amended— 

(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (7) as paragraphs (2) through (8), 

respectively; 

(2) by inserting before paragraph (2), as so redesignated, the following new 

paragraph: 

‘‘(1) ‘cyber-physical systems’ means physical or engineered systems whose networking and information technology functions and physical elements are deeply 

integrated and are actively connected to the physical world through sensors, actuators, or other means to perform monitoring and control functions;’’; 

(3) in paragraph (4), as so redesignated— 

(A) by striking ‘‘high-performance computing’’ and inserting ‘‘networking 

and information technology’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘supercomputer’’ and inserting ‘‘high-end computing’’; 

(4) in paragraph (6), as so redesignated, by striking ‘‘network referred to as’’ 

and all that follows through the semicolon and inserting ‘‘network, including advanced computer networks of Federal agencies and departments;’’; and 

(5) in paragraph (7), as so redesignated, by striking ‘‘National High-Performance Computing Program’’ and inserting ‘‘networking and information technology research and development program’’. 

SEC. 113. LARGE-SCALE RESEARCH IN AREAS OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE. 

Title I of such Act (15 U.S.C. 5511) is amended by adding at the end the following 

new section: 

‘‘SEC. 104. LARGE-SCALE RESEARCH IN AREAS OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE. 

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Program shall encourage agencies identified in section 

101(a)(3)(B) to support large-scale, long-term, interdisciplinary research and development activities in networking and information technology directed toward application areas that have the potential for significant contributions to national economic 

competitiveness and for other significant societal benefits. Such activities, ranging 

from basic research to the demonstration of technical solutions, shall be designed 

to advance the development of research discoveries. The advisory committee established under section 101(b) shall make recommendations to the Program for candidate research and development areas for support under this section. 

‘‘(b) CHARACTERISTICS.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Research and development activities under this section 

shall— 

‘‘(A) include projects selected on the basis of applications for support 

through a competitive, merit-based process; 

‘‘(B) involve collaborations among researchers in institutions of higher 

education and industry, and may involve nonprofit research institutions 

and Federal laboratories, as appropriate; 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
13 

‘‘(C) when possible, leverage Federal investments through collaboration 

with related State initiatives; and 

‘‘(D) include a plan for fostering the transfer of research discoveries and 

the results of technology demonstration activities, including from institutions of higher education and Federal laboratories, to industry for commercial development. 

‘‘(2) COST-SHARING.—In selecting applications for support, the agencies shall 

give special consideration to projects that include cost sharing from non-Federal 

sources. 

‘‘(3) AGENCY COLLABORATION.—If 2 or more agencies identified in section 

101(a)(3)(B), or other appropriate agencies, are working on large-scale research 

and development activities in the same area of national importance, then such 

agencies shall strive to collaborate through joint solicitation and selection of applications for support and subsequent funding of projects. 

‘‘(4) INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH CENTERS.—Research and development activities under this section may be supported through interdisciplinary research 

centers that are organized to investigate basic research questions and carry out 

technology demonstration activities in areas described in subsection (a). Research may be carried out through existing interdisciplinary centers, including 

those authorized under section 7024(b)(2) of the America COMPETES Act (Public Law 110–69; 42 U.S.C. 1862o–10).’’. 

SEC. 114. CYBER-PHYSICAL SYSTEMS AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT. 

(a) ADDITIONAL PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS.—Section 101(a)(1) of such Act (15 

U.S.C. 5511(a)(1)) is amended— 

(1) in subparagraph (H), by striking ‘‘and’’ after the semicolon; 

(2) in subparagraph (I), by striking the period at the end and inserting a 

semicolon; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs: 

‘‘(J) provide for increased understanding of the scientific principles of 

cyber-physical systems and improve the methods available for the design, 

development, and operation of cyber-physical systems that are characterized by high reliability, safety, and security; and 

‘‘(K) provide for research and development on human-computer interactions, visualization, and information management.’’. 

(b) TASK FORCE.—Title I of such Act (15 U.S.C. 5511) is amended further by adding after section 104, as added by section 113 of this Act, the following new section: 

‘‘SEC. 105. UNIVERSITY/INDUSTRY TASK FORCE. 

‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of the 

Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act of 2010, 

the Director of the National Coordination Office established under section 102 shall 

convene a task force to explore mechanisms for carrying out collaborative research 

and development activities for cyber-physical systems, including the related technologies required to enable these systems, through a consortium or other appropriate entity with participants from institutions of higher education, Federal laboratories, and industry. 

‘‘(b) FUNCTIONS.—The task force shall— 

‘‘(1) develop options for a collaborative model and an organizational structure 

for such entity under which the joint research and development activities could 

be planned, managed, and conducted effectively, including mechanisms for the 

allocation of resources among the participants in such entity for support of such 

activities; 

‘‘(2) propose a process for developing a research and development agenda for 

such entity, including objectives and milestones; 

‘‘(3) define the roles and responsibilities for the participants from institutions 

of higher education, Federal laboratories, and industry in such entity; 

‘‘(4) propose guidelines for assigning intellectual property rights and for the 

transfer of research results to the private sector; and 

‘‘(5) make recommendations for how such entity could be funded from Federal, 

State, and non-governmental sources. 

‘‘(c) COMPOSITION.—In establishing the task force under subsection (a), the Director of the National Coordination Office shall appoint an equal number of individuals 

from institutions of higher education and from industry with knowledge and expertise in cyber-physical systems, of which 2 may be selected from Federal laboratories. 

‘‘(d) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the Networking 

and Information Technology Research and Development Act of 2010, the Director of 

the National Coordination Office shall transmit to the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Science and TechVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
14 

nology of the House of Representatives a report describing the findings and recommendations of the task force.’’. 

SEC. 115. NATIONAL COORDINATION OFFICE. 

Section 102 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 5512) is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘SEC. 102. NATIONAL COORDINATION OFFICE. 

‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Director shall establish a National Coordination Office 

with a Director and full-time staff. 

‘‘(b) FUNCTIONS.—The National Coordination Office shall— 

‘‘(1) provide technical and administrative support to— 

‘‘(A) the agencies participating in planning and implementing the Program, including such support as needed in the development of the strategic 

plan under section 101(e); and 

‘‘(B) the advisory committee established under section 101(b); 

‘‘(2) serve as the primary point of contact on Federal networking and information technology activities for government organizations, academia, industry, professional societies, State computing and networking technology programs, interested citizen groups, and others to exchange technical and programmatic information; 

‘‘(3) solicit input and recommendations from a wide range of stakeholders during the development of each strategic plan required under section 101(e) 

through the convening of at least 1 workshop with invitees from academia, industry, Federal laboratories, and other relevant organizations and institutions; 

‘‘(4) conduct public outreach, including the dissemination of findings and recommendations of the advisory committee, as appropriate; and 

‘‘(5) promote access to and early application of the technologies, innovations, 

and expertise derived from Program activities to agency missions and systems 

across the Federal Government and to United States industry. 

‘‘(c) SOURCE OF FUNDING.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The operation of the National Coordination Office shall be 

supported by funds from each agency participating in the Program. 

‘‘(2) SPECIFICATIONS.—The portion of the total budget of such Office that is 

provided by each agency for each fiscal year shall be in the same proportion as 

each such agency’s share of the total budget for the Program for the previous 

fiscal year, as specified in the report required under section 101(a)(3).’’. 

SEC. 116. IMPROVING NETWORKING AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION. 

Section 201(a) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 5521(a)) is amended— 

(1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (4) as paragraphs (3) through (5), 

respectively; and 

(2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new paragraph: 

‘‘(2) the National Science Foundation shall use its existing programs, in collaboration with other agencies, as appropriate, to improve the teaching and 

learning of networking and information technology at all levels of education and 

to increase participation in networking and information technology fields, including by women and underrepresented minorities;’’. 

SEC. 117. CONFORMING AND TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS. 

(a) SECTION 3.—Section 3 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 5502) is amended— 

(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘high-performance computing’’ and inserting ‘‘networking and information technology’’; 

(2) in paragraph (1), in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 

‘‘high-performance computing’’ and inserting ‘‘networking and information technology’’; 

(3) in subparagraphs (A) and (F) of paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘high-performance computing’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘networking and information technology’’; and 

(4) in paragraph (2)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘high-performance computing and’’ and inserting ‘‘networking and information technology and’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘high-performance computing network’’ and inserting ‘‘networking and information technology’’. 

(b) TITLE I.—The heading of title I of such Act (15 U.S.C. 5511) is amended by 

striking ‘‘HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING’’ and inserting ‘‘NETWORKING 

AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY’’. 

(c) SECTION 101.—Section 101 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 5511) is amended— 

(1) in the section heading, by striking ‘‘HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING’’ and 

inserting ‘‘NETWORKING AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT’’; 

(2) in subsection (a)— 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
15 

(A) in the subsection heading, by striking ‘‘NATIONAL HIGH-PERFORMANCE

COMPUTING’’ and inserting ‘‘NETWORKING AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT’’; 

(B) in paragraph (1) of such subsection— 

(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘National 

High-Performance Computing Program’’ and inserting ‘‘networking and 

information technology research and development program’’; 

(ii) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘high-performance computing, 

including networking’’ and inserting ‘‘networking and information technology’’; and 

(iii) in subparagraphs (B), (C), and (G), by striking ‘‘high-performance’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘high-end’’; and 

(C) in paragraph (2) of such subsection— 

(i) in subparagraphs (A) and (C)— 

(I) by striking ‘‘high-performance computing’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘networking and information technology’’; and 

(II) by striking ‘‘development, networking,’’ each place it appears 

and inserting ‘‘development,’’; and 

(ii) in subparagraphs (F) and (G), as redesignated by section 112(c)(1) 

of this Act, by striking ‘‘high-performance’’ each place it appears and 

inserting ‘‘high-end’’; 

(3) in subsection (b)(1), in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 

‘‘high-performance computing’’ both places it appears and inserting ‘‘networking 

and information technology’’; and 

(4) in subsection (c)(1)(A), by striking ‘‘high-performance computing’’ and inserting ‘‘networking and information technology’’. 

(d) SECTION 201.—Section 201(a)(1) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 5521(a)(1)) is amended 

by striking ‘‘high-performance computing’’ and all that follows through ‘‘networking;’’ and inserting ‘‘networking and information research and development;’’. 

(e) SECTION 202.—Section 202(a) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 5522(a)) is amended by 

striking ‘‘high-performance computing’’ and inserting ‘‘networking and information 

technology’’. 

(f) SECTION 203.—Section 203(a)(1) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 5523(a)(1)) is amended 

by striking ‘‘high-performance computing and networking’’ and inserting ‘‘networking and information technology’’. 

(g) SECTION 204.—Section 204(a)(1) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 5524(a)(1)) is amended— 

(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘high-performance computing systems 

and networks’’ and inserting ‘‘networking and information technology systems 

and capabilities’’; and 

(2) in subparagraph (C), by striking ‘‘high-performance computing’’ and inserting ‘‘networking and information technology’’. 

(h) SECTION 205.—Section 205(a) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 5525(a)) is amended by 

striking ‘‘computational’’ and inserting ‘‘networking and information technology’’. 

(i) SECTION 206.—Section 206(a) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 5526(a)) is amended by 

striking ‘‘computational research’’ and inserting ‘‘networking and information technology research’’. 

(j) SECTION 208.—Section 208 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 5528) is amended— 

(1) in the section heading, by striking ‘‘high-performance computing’’ and inserting ‘‘net- working and information technology’’; and 

(2) in subsection (a)— 

(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘High-performance computing and associated’’ and inserting ‘‘Networking and information’’; 

(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘high-performance computing’’ and inserting ‘‘networking and information technologies’’; 

(C) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘high-performance computers and associated’’ and inserting ‘‘networking and information’’; and 

(D) in paragraph (5), by striking ‘‘high-performance computing and associated’’ and inserting ‘‘networking and information’’. 

Subtitle C—Other OSTP Provisions 

SEC. 121. FEDERAL SCIENTIFIC COLLECTIONS. 

(a) MANAGEMENT OF SCIENTIFIC COLLECTIONS.—The Office of Science and Technology Policy, in consultation with relevant Federal agencies, shall ensure the development of formal policies for the management and use of Federal scientific collections to improve the quality, organization, access, including online access, and longterm preservation of such collections for the benefit of the scientific enterprise. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
16 

(b) DEFINITION.—For the purposes of this section, the term ‘‘scientific collection’’ 

means a set of physical specimens, living or inanimate, created for the purpose of 

supporting science and serving as a long-term research asset, rather than for their 

market value as collectibles or their historical, artistic, or cultural significance. 

(c) CLEARINGHOUSE.—The Office of Science and Technology Policy, in consultation 

with relevant Federal agencies, shall ensure the development of an online clearinghouse for information on the contents of and access to Federal scientific collections. 

(d) DISPOSAL OF COLLECTIONS.—The policies developed under subsection (a) 

shall— 

(1) require that, before disposing of a scientific collection, a Federal agency 

shall— 

(A) conduct a review of the research value of the collection; and 

(B) consult with researchers who have used the collection, and other potentially interested parties, concerning— 

(i) the collection’s value for research purposes; and 

(ii) possible additional educational uses for the collection; and 

(2) include procedures for Federal agencies to transfer scientific collections 

they no longer need to researchers at institutions or other entities qualified to 

manage the collections. 

(e) COST PROJECTIONS.—The Office of Science and Technology Policy, in consultation with relevant Federal agencies, shall develop a common set of methodologies 

to be used by Federal agencies for the assessment and projection of costs associated 

with the management and preservation of their scientific collections. 

SEC. 122. COORDINATION OF MANUFACTURING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT. 

(a) INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE.—The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall establish or designate an interagency committee under the National Science and Technology Council with the responsibility for planning and coordinating Federal programs and activities in manufacturing research and development. 

(b) RESPONSIBILITIES OF COMMITTEE.—The interagency committee established or 

designated under subsection (a) shall— 

(1) coordinate the manufacturing research and development programs and activities of the Federal agencies; 

(2) establish goals and priorities for manufacturing research and development 

that will strengthen United States manufacturing; and 

(3) develop and update every 5 years thereafter a strategic plan to guide Federal programs and activities in support of manufacturing research and development, which shall— 

(A) specify and prioritize near-term and long-term research and development objectives, the anticipated time frame for achieving the objectives, and 

the metrics for use in assessing progress toward the objectives; 

(B) specify the role of each Federal agency in carrying out or sponsoring 

research and development to meet the objectives of the strategic plan; and 

(C) describe how the Federal agencies supporting manufacturing research 

and development will foster the transfer of research and development results into new manufacturing technologies, processes, and products for the 

benefit of society and the national interest. 

(c) RECOMMENDATIONS.—In the development of the strategic plan required under 

subsection (b)(3), the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, working through the interagency committee, shall take into consideration the recommendations of a wide range of stakeholders, including representatives from diverse manufacturing companies, academia, and other relevant organizations and institutions. 

(d) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 

this Act, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall transmit 

the strategic plan developed under subsection (b)(3) to the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation of the Senate, and the Committee on Science and Technology of the House of Representatives, and shall transmit subsequent updates to 

those committees when completed. 

SEC. 123. INTERAGENCY PUBLIC ACCESS COMMITTEE. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy 

shall establish a working group under the National Science and Technology Council 

with the responsibility to coordinate Federal science agency research and policies related to the dissemination and long-term stewardship of the results of unclassified 

research, including digital data and peer-reviewed scholarly publications, supported 

wholly, or in part, by funding from the Federal science agencies. 

(b) RESPONSIBILITIES.—The working group established under subsection (a) 

shall— 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
17 

(1) coordinate the development or designation of uniform standards for research data, the structure of full text and metadata, navigation tools, and other 

applications to achieve interoperability across Federal science agencies, across 

science and engineering disciplines, and between research data and scholarly 

publications, taking into account existing consensus standards, including international standards; 

(2) coordinate Federal science agency programs and activities that support research and education on tools and systems required to ensure preservation and 

stewardship of all forms of digital research data, including scholarly publications; 

(3) work with international science and technology counterparts to maximize 

interoperability between United States based unclassified research databases 

and international databases and repositories; 

(4) solicit input and recommendations from, and collaborate with, non-Federal 

stakeholders, including universities, nonprofit and for-profit publishers, libraries, federally funded research scientists, and other organizations and institutions with a stake in long term preservation and access to the results of federally funded research; and 

(5) establish priorities for coordinating the development of any Federal 

science agency policies related to public access to the results of federally funded 

research to maximize uniformity of such policies with respect to their benefit 

to, and potential economic or other impact on, the science and engineering enterprise and the stakeholders thereof. 

(c) PATENT OR COPYRIGHT LAW.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect any right under the provisions of title 17 or 35, United States Code. 

(d) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 

this Act, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall transmit 

a report to Congress describing— 

(1) any priorities established under subsection (b)(5); 

(2) the status of any Federal science agency policies related to public access 

to the results of federally funded research; and 

(3) how any policies developed or being developed by Federal science agencies, 

as described in paragraph (2), incorporate input from the non-Federal stakeholders described in subsection (b)(4). 

(e) DEFINITION.—For the purposes of this section, the term ‘‘Federal science agency’’ means any Federal agency with an annual extramural research expenditure of 

over $100,000,000. 

SEC. 124. FULFILLING THE POTENTIAL OF WOMEN IN ACADEMIC SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING. 

(a) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘Federal science agency’’ means any 

Federal agency that is responsible for at least 2 percent of total Federal research 

and development funding to institutions of higher education, according to the most 

recent data available from the National Science Foundation. 

(b) WORKSHOPS TO ENHANCE GENDER EQUITY IN ACADEMIC SCIENCE AND ENGI- NEERING.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this 

Act, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall develop 

a uniform policy for all Federal science agencies to carry out a program of workshops that educate program officers, members of grant review panels, institution of higher education STEM department chairs, and other federally funded 

researchers about methods that minimize the effects of gender bias in evaluation of Federal research grants and in the related academic advancement of actual and potential recipients of these grants, including hiring, tenure, promotion, and selection for any honor based in part on the recipient’s research 

record. 

(2) INTERAGENCY COORDINATION.—The Director of the Office of Science and 

Technology Policy shall ensure that programs of workshops across the Federal 

science agencies are coordinated and supported jointly as appropriate. As part 

of this process, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall 

ensure that at least 1 workshop is supported every 2 years among the Federal 

science agencies in each of the major science and engineering disciplines supported by those agencies. 

(3) ORGANIZATIONS ELIGIBLE TO CARRY OUT WORKSHOPS.—Federal science 

agencies may carry out the program of workshops under this subsection by 

making grants to eligible organizations. In addition to any other organizations 

made eligible by the Federal science agencies, the following organizations are 

eligible for grants under this subsection: 

(A) Nonprofit scientific and professional societies and organizations that 

represent one or more STEM disciplines. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
18 

(B) Nonprofit organizations that have the primary mission of advancing 

the participation of women in STEM. 

(4) CHARACTERISTICS OF WORKSHOPS.—The workshops shall have the following characteristics: 

(A) Invitees to workshops shall include at least— 

(i) the chairs of departments in the relevant discipline from at least 

the top 50 institutions of higher education, as determined by the 

amount of Federal research and development funds obligated to each 

institution of higher education in the prior year based on data available 

from the National Science Foundation; 

(ii) members of any standing research grant review panel appointed 

by the Federal science agencies in the relevant discipline; 

(iii) in the case of science and engineering disciplines supported by 

the Department of Energy, the individuals from each of the Department of Energy National Laboratories with personnel management responsibilities comparable to those of an institution of higher education 

department chair; and 

(iv) Federal science agency program officers in the relevant discipline, other than program officers that participate in comparable 

workshops organized and run specifically for that agency’s program officers. 

(B) Activities at the workshops shall include research presentations and 

interactive discussions or other activities that increase the awareness of the 

existence of gender bias in the grant-making process and the development 

of the academic record necessary to qualify as a grant recipient, including 

recruitment, hiring, tenure review, promotion, and other forms of formal 

recognition of individual achievement, and provide strategies to overcome 

such bias. 

(C) Research presentations and other workshop programs, as appropriate, 

shall include a discussion of the unique challenges faced by women who are 

members of historically underrepresented groups. 

(D) Workshop programs shall include information on best practices and 

the value of mentoring undergraduate and graduate women students as 

well as outreach to girls earlier in their STEM education. 

(5) REPORT.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of 

this Act, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall 

transmit to the Committee on Science and Technology of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

of the Senate a report evaluating the effectiveness of the program carried 

out under this subsection to reduce gender bias towards women engaged in 

research funded by the Federal Government. The Director of the Office of 

Science and Technology Policy shall include in this report any recommendations for improving the evaluation process described in subparagraph (B). 

(B) MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION.—In determining the effectiveness of the program, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology 

Policy shall consider, at a minimum— 

(i) the rates of participation by invitees in the workshops authorized 

under this subsection; 

(ii) the results of attitudinal surveys conducted on workshop participants before and after the workshops; 

(iii) any relevant institutional policy or practice changes reported by 

participants; and 

(iv) for individuals described in paragraph (4)(A)(i) or (iii) who participated in at least 1 workshop 3 or more years prior to the due date 

for the report, trends in the data for the department represented by the 

chair or employee including faculty data related to gender as described 

in section 216. 

(C) INSTITUTIONAL ATTENDANCE AT WORKSHOPS.—As part of the report 

under subparagraph (A), the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall include a list of institutions of higher education science 

and engineering departments whose representatives attended the workshops required under this subsection. 

(6) MINIMIZING COSTS.—To the extent practicable, workshops shall be held in 

conjunction with national or regional disciplinary meetings to minimize costs 

associated with participant travel. 

(c) EXTENDED RESEARCH GRANT SUPPORT AND INTERIM TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR

CAREGIVERS.— 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
19 

(1) POLICIES FOR CAREGIVERS.—Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy 

shall develop a uniform policy to— 

(A) extend the period of grant support for federally funded researchers 

who have caregiving responsibilities; and 

(B) provide funding for interim technical staff support for federally funded researchers who take a leave of absence for caregiving responsibilities. 

(2) REPORT.—Upon developing the policy required under paragraph (1), the 

Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall transmit a copy of 

the policy to the Committee on Science and Technology of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

of the Senate. 

(d) COLLECTION OF DATA ON FEDERAL RESEARCH GRANTS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Each Federal science agency shall collect standardized annual composite information on demographics, field, award type and budget request, review score, and funding outcome for all applications for research and 

development grants to institutions of higher education supported by that agency. 

(2) REPORTING OF DATA.— 

(A) The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall establish a policy to ensure uniformity and standardization of data collection 

required under paragraph (1). 

(B) Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, and 

annually thereafter, each Federal science agency shall submit data collected 

under paragraph (1) to the National Science Foundation. 

(C) The National Science Foundation shall be responsible for storing and 

publishing all of the grant data submitted under subparagraph (B) in conjunction with the biennial report required under section 37 of the Science 

and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act (42 U.S.C. 1885d). 

TITLE II—NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE. 

This title may be cited as the ‘‘National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 

2010’’. 

Subtitle A—General Provisions 

SEC. 211. DEFINITIONS. 

In this title: 

(1) DIRECTOR.—The term ‘‘Director’’ means the Director of the National 

Science Foundation established under section 2 of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1861). 

(2) FOUNDATION.—The term ‘‘Foundation’’ means the National Science Foundation established under section 2 of the National Science Foundation Act of 

1950 (42 U.S.C. 1861). 

(3) INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION.—The term ‘‘institution of higher education’’ has the meaning given such term in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)). 

(4) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means one of the several States, the District of 

Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or any other 

territory or possession of the United States. 

(5) STEM.—The term ‘‘STEM’’ means science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics. 

(6) UNITED STATES.—The term ‘‘United States’’ means the several States, the 

District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, 

Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 

and any other territory or possession of the United States. 

SEC. 212. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

(a) FISCAL YEAR 2011.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Foundation 

$7,481,000,000 for fiscal year 2011. 

(2) SPECIFIC ALLOCATIONS.—Of the amount authorized under paragraph (1)— 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
20 

(A) $6,020,000,000 shall be made available for research and related activities; 

(B) $945,000,000 shall be made available for education and human resources; 

(C) $166,000,000 shall be made available for major research equipment 

and facilities construction; 

(D) $330,000,000 shall be made available for agency operations and 

award management; 

(E) $4,840,000 shall be made available for the Office of the National 

Science Board; and 

(F) $14,830,000 shall be made available for the Office of Inspector General. 

(b) FISCAL YEAR 2012.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Foundation 

$8,127,000,000 for fiscal year 2012. 

(2) SPECIFIC ALLOCATIONS.—Of the amount authorized under paragraph (1)— 

(A) $6,496,000,000 shall be made available for research and related activities; 

(B) $1,020,000,000 shall be made available for education and human resources; 

(C) $235,000,000 shall be made available for major research equipment 

and facilities construction; 

(D) $356,000,000 shall be made available for agency operations and 

award management; 

(E) $5,010,000 shall be made available for the Office of the National 

Science Board; and 

(F) $15,350,000 shall be made available for the Office of Inspector General. 

(c) FISCAL YEAR 2013.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Foundation 

$8,764,000,000 for fiscal year 2013. 

(2) SPECIFIC ALLOCATIONS.—Of the amount authorized under paragraph (1)— 

(A) $7,009,000,000 shall be made available for research and related activities; 

(B) $1,100,000,000 shall be made available for education and human resources; 

(C) $250,000,000 shall be made available for major research equipment 

and facilities construction; 

(D) $384,000,000 shall be made available for agency operations and 

award management; 

(E) $5,180,000 shall be made available for the Office of the National 

Science Board; and 

(F) $15,890,000 shall be made available for the Office of Inspector General. 

(d) FISCAL YEAR 2014.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Foundation 

$9,436,000,000 for fiscal year 2014. 

(2) SPECIFIC ALLOCATIONS.—Of the amount authorized under paragraph (1)— 

(A) $7,562,000,000 shall be made available for research and related activities; 

(B) $1,187,000,000 shall be made available for education and human resources; 

(C) $250,000,000 shall be made available for major research equipment 

and facilities construction; 

(D) $415,000,000 shall be made available for agency operations and 

award management; 

(E) $5,370,000 shall be made available for the Office of the National 

Science Board; and 

(F) $16,440,000 shall be made available for the Office of Inspector General. 

(e) FISCAL YEAR 2015.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Foundation 

$10,161,000,000 for fiscal year 2015. 

(2) SPECIFIC ALLOCATIONS.—Of the amount authorized under paragraph (1)— 

(A) $8,160,000,000 shall be made available for research and related activities; 

(B) $1,281,000,000 shall be made available for education and human resources; 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
21 

(C) $250,000,000 shall be made available for major research equipment 

and facilities construction; 

(D) $447,000,000 shall be made available for agency operations and 

award management; 

(E) $5,550,000 shall be made available for the Office of the National 

Science Board; and 

(F) $17,020,000 shall be made available for the Office of Inspector General. 

SEC. 213. NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS. 

(a) STAFFING AT THE NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD.—Section 4(g) of the National 

Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1863(g)) is amended by striking ‘‘not 

more than 5’’. 

(b) SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INDICATORS DUE DATE.—Section 4(j)(1) of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1863(j)(1)) is amended by striking 

‘‘January 15’’ and inserting ‘‘May 31’’. 

(c) NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD REPORTS.—Section 4(j)(2) of the National Science 

Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1863(j)(2)) is amended by inserting ‘‘within the 

authority of the Foundation (or otherwise as requested by the appropriate Congressional committees of jurisdiction or the President)’’ after ‘‘individual policy matters’’. 

(d) BOARD ADHERENCE TO SUNSHINE ACT.—Section 15(a) of the National Science 

Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 1862n–5(a)) is amended— 

(1) by striking paragraph (3) and redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as 

paragraphs (3) and (4), respectively; 

(2) in paragraph (3), as so redesignated by paragraph (1) of this subsection— 

(A) by striking ‘‘February 15’’ and inserting ‘‘April 15’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘the audit required under paragraph (3) along with’’ and 

inserting ‘‘any’’; and 

(3) in paragraph (4), as so redesignated by paragraph (1) of this subsection, 

by striking ‘‘To facilitate the audit required under paragraph (3) of this subsection, the’’ and inserting ‘‘The’’. 

SEC. 214. BROADER IMPACTS REVIEW CRITERION. 

(a) GOALS.—The Foundation shall apply a Broader Impacts Review Criterion to 

achieve the following goals: 

(1) Increased economic competitiveness of the United States. 

(2) Development of a globally competitive STEM workforce. 

(3) Increased participation of women and underrepresented minorities in 

STEM. 

(4) Increased partnerships between academia and industry. 

(5) Improved pre-K-12 STEM education and teacher development. 

(6) Improved undergraduate STEM education. 

(7) Increased public scientific literacy. 

(8) Increased national security. 

(b) POLICY.—Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the 

Director shall develop and implement a policy for the Broader Impacts Review Criterion that— 

(1) provides for educating professional staff at the Foundation, merit review 

panels, and applicants for Foundation research grants on the policy developed 

under this subsection; 

(2) clarifies that the activities of grant recipients undertaken to satisfy the 

Broader Impacts Review Criterion shall— 

(A) to the extent practicable employ proven strategies and models and 

draw on existing programs and activities; and 

(B) when novel approaches are justified, build on the most current research results; 

(3) allows for some portion of funds allocated to broader impacts under a research grant to be used for assessment and evaluation of the broader impacts 

activity; 

(4) encourages institutions of higher education and other nonprofit education 

or research organizations to develop and provide, either as individual institutions or in partnerships thereof, appropriate training and programs to assist 

Foundation-funded principal investigators at their institutions in achieving the 

goals of the Broader Impacts Review Criterion as described in subsection (a); 

and 

(5) requires principal investigators applying for Foundation research grants 

to provide evidence of institutional support for the portion of the investigator’s 

proposal designed to satisfy the Broader Impacts Review Criterion, including 

evidence of relevant training, programs, and other institutional resources availVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
22 

able to the investigator from either their home institution or organization or another institution or organization with relevant expertise. 

SEC. 215. NATIONAL CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING STATISTICS. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established within the Foundation a National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (in this section referred to as the ‘‘Center’’), that shall serve as a central Federal clearinghouse for the collection, interpretation, analysis, and dissemination of objective data on science, engineering, technology, and research and development. 

(b) DUTIES.—In carrying out subsection (a) of this section, the Director, acting 

through the Center shall— 

(1) collect, acquire, analyze, report, and disseminate statistical data related 

to the science and engineering enterprise in the United States and other nations that is relevant and useful to practitioners, researchers, policymakers, and 

the public, including statistical data on— 

(A) research and development trends; 

(B) the science and engineering workforce; 

(C) United States competitiveness in science, engineering, technology, and 

research and development; and 

(D) the condition and progress of United States STEM education; 

(2) support research using the data it collects, and on methodologies in areas 

related to the work of the Center; and 

(3) support the education and training of researchers in the use of large-scale, 

nationally representative data sets. 

(c) STATISTICAL REPORTS.—The Director or the National Science Board, acting 

through the Center, shall issue regular, and as necessary, special statistical reports 

on topics related to the national and international science and engineering enterprise such as the biennial report required by section 4 (j)(1) of the National Science 

Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1863(j)(1)) on indicators of the state of science 

and engineering in the United States. 

SEC. 216. COLLECTION OF DATA ON DEMOGRAPHICS OF FACULTY. 

(a) COLLECTION OF DATA.—The Director shall report, in conjunction with the biennial report required under section 37 of the Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act (42 U.S.C.19 1885d), statistical summary data on the demographics of 

STEM discipline faculty at institutions of higher education in the United States. At 

a minimum, the Director shall consider— 

(1) the number and percent of faculty by gender, race, and age; 

(2) the number and percent of faculty at each rank, by gender, race, and age; 

(3) the number and percent of faculty who are in nontenure-track positions, 

including teaching and research, by gender, race, and age; 

(4) the number of faculty who are reviewed for promotion, including tenure, 

and the percentage of that number who are promoted, by gender, race, and age; 

(5) faculty years in rank by gender, race, and age; 

(6) faculty attrition by gender, race, and age; 

(7) the number and percent of faculty hired by rank, gender, race, and age; 

and 

(8) the number and percent of faculty in leadership positions, including endowed or named chairs, serving on promotion and tenure committees, by gender, race, and age. 

(b) RECOMMENDATIONS.—The Director shall solicit input and recommendations 

from relevant stakeholders, including representatives from institutions of higher 

education and nonprofit organizations, on the collection of data required under subsection (a), including the development of standard definitions on the terms and categories to be used in the collection of such data. 

(c) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of 

this Act, the Director shall submit a report to Congress on how the Foundation will 

gather the demographic data on STEM faculty, including— 

(1) a description of the data to be reported and the sources of those data; 

(2) justification for the exclusion of any data described in paragraph (1); and 

(3) a list of the definitions for the terms and categories, such as ‘‘faculty’’ and 

‘‘leadership positions’’, to be applied in the reporting of all data described in 

paragraph (1). 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
23 

Subtitle B—Research and Innovation 

SEC. 221. SUPPORT FOR POTENTIALLY TRANSFORMATIVE RESEARCH. 

(a) POLICY.—The Director shall establish a policy that requires the Foundation to 

use at least 5 percent of its research budget to fund high-risk, high-reward basic 

research proposals. Support for facilities and infrastructure, including 

preconstruction design and operations and maintenance of major research facilities, 

shall not be counted as part of the research budget for the purposes of this section. 

(b) IMPLEMENTATION.—In implementing such policy, the Foundation may— 

(1) develop solicitations specifically for high-risk, high-reward basic research; 

(2) establish review panels for the primary purpose of selecting high-risk, 

high-reward proposals or modify instructions to standard review panels to require identification of high-risk, high-reward proposals; and 

(3) support workshops and participate in conferences with the primary purpose of identifying new opportunities for high-risk, high-reward basic research, 

especially at interdisciplinary interfaces. 

(c) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘high-risk, high-reward 

basic research’’ means research driven by ideas that have the potential to radically 

change our understanding of an important existing scientific or engineering concept, 

or leading to the creation of a new paradigm or field of science or engineering, and 

that is characterized by its challenge to current understanding or its pathway to 

new frontiers. 

SEC. 222. FACILITATING INTERDISCIPLINARY COLLABORATIONS FOR NATIONAL NEEDS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Director shall award competitive, merit-based awards in 

amounts not to exceed $5,000,000 over a period of up to 5 years to interdisciplinary 

research collaborations that are likely to assist in addressing critical challenges to 

national security, competitiveness, and societal well-being and that— 

(1) involve at least 2 co-equal principal investigators at the same or different 

institutions; 

(2) draw upon well-integrated, diverse teams of investigators, including students or postdoctoral researchers, from one or more disciplines; and 

(3) foster creativity and pursue high-risk, high-reward research. 

(b) PRIORITY.—In selecting grant recipients under this section, the Director shall 

give priority to applicants that propose to utilize advances in cyberinfrastructure 

and simulation-based science and engineering. 

SEC. 223. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION MANUFACTURING RESEARCH AND EDUCATION. 

(a) MANUFACTURING RESEARCH.—The Director shall carry out a program to award 

merit-reviewed, competitive grants to institutions of higher education to support 

fundamental research leading to transformative advances in manufacturing technologies, processes, and enterprises that will support United States manufacturing 

through improved performance, productivity, sustainability, and competitiveness. 

Research areas may include— 

(1) nanomanufacturing; 

(2) manufacturing and construction machines and equipment, including robotics, automation, and other intelligent systems; 

(3) manufacturing enterprise systems; 

(4) advanced sensing and control techniques; 

(5) materials processing; and 

(6) information technologies for manufacturing, including predictive and realtime models and simulations, and virtual manufacturing. 

(b) MANUFACTURING EDUCATION.—In order to help ensure a well-trained manufacturing workforce, the Director shall award grants to strengthen and expand scientific and technical education and training in advanced manufacturing, including 

through the Foundation’s Advanced Technological Education program. 

SEC. 224. STRENGTHENING INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH PARTNERSHIPS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—For any Foundation research grant, in an amount greater than 

$2,000,000, to be carried out through a partnership that includes one or more minority-serving institutions or predominantly undergraduate institutions and one or 

more institutions described in subsection (b), the Director shall award funds directly, according to the budget justification described in the grant proposal, to at 

least two of the institutions of higher education in the partnership, including at 

least one minority-serving institution or one predominantly undergraduate institution, to ensure a strong and equitable partnership. 

(b) INSTITUTIONS.—The institutions referred to in subsection (a) are institutions 

of higher education that are among the 100 institutions receiving, over the 3-year 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
24 

period immediately preceding the awarding of grants, the highest amount of research funding from the Foundation. 

SEC. 225. NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD REPORT ON MID-SCALE INSTRUMENTATION. 

(a) MID-SCALE RESEARCH INSTRUMENTATION NEEDS.—The National Science Board 

shall evaluate the needs, across all disciplines supported by the Foundation, for 

mid-scale research instrumentation that falls between the instruments funded by 

the Major Research Instrumentation program and the very large projects funded by 

the Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction program. 

(b) REPORT ON MID-SCALE RESEARCH INSTRUMENTATION PROGRAM.—Not later 

than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the National Science Board shall 

submit to Congress a report on mid-scale research instrumentation at the Foundation. At a minimum, this report shall include— 

(1) the findings from the Board’s evaluation of instrumentation needs required under subsection (a), including a description of differences across disciplines and Foundation research directorates; 

(2) a recommendation or recommendations regarding how the Foundation 

should set priorities for mid-scale instrumentation across disciplines and Foundation research directorates; 

(3) a recommendation or recommendations regarding the appropriateness of 

expanding existing programs, including the Major Research Instrumentation 

program or the Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction program, 

to support more instrumentation at the mid-scale; 

(4) a recommendation or recommendations regarding the need for and appropriateness of a new, Foundation-wide program or initiative in support of midscale instrumentation, including any recommendations regarding the administration of and budget for such a program or initiative and the appropriate scope 

of instruments to be funded under such a program or initiative; and 

(5) any recommendation or recommendations regarding other options for supporting mid-scale research instrumentation at the Foundation. 

SEC. 226. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON OVERALL SUPPORT FOR RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE AT 

THE FOUNDATION. 

It is the sense of Congress that the Foundation should strive to keep the percentage of the Foundation budget devoted to research infrastructure in the range of 24 

to 27 percent, as recommended in the 2003 National Science Board report entitled 

‘‘Science and Engineering Infrastructure for the 21st Century’’. 

SEC. 227. PARTNERSHIPS FOR INNOVATION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Director shall carry out a program to award merit-reviewed, competitive grants to institutions of higher education to establish and to expand partnerships that promote innovation and increase the economic and social impact of research by developing tools and resources to connect new scientific discoveries to practical uses. 

(b) PARTNERSHIPS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—To be eligible for funding under this section, an institution 

of higher education must propose establishment of a partnership that— 

(A) includes at least one private sector entity; and 

(B) may include other institutions of higher education, public sector institutions, private sector entities, and social enterprise nonprofit organizations. 

(2) PRIORITY.—In selecting grant recipients under this section, the Director 

shall give priority to partnerships that include one or more institutions of higher education that are among the 100 institutions receiving, over the 3-year period immediately preceding the awarding of grants, the highest amount of research funding from the Foundation and at least one of the following: 

(A) A minority serving institution. 

(B) A primarily undergraduate institution. 

(C) A 2-year institution of higher education. 

(c) PROGRAM.—Proposals funded under this section shall seek to— 

(1) increase the economic or social impact of the most promising research at 

the institution or institutions of higher education that are members of the partnership through knowledge transfer or commercialization; 

(2) increase the engagement of faculty and students across multiple disciplines and departments, including faculty and students in schools of business 

and other appropriate non-STEM fields and disciplines in knowledge transfer 

activities; 

(3) enhance education and mentoring of students and faculty in innovation 

and entrepreneurship through networks, courses, and development of best practices and curricula; 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
25 

(4) strengthen the culture of the institution or institutions of higher education 

to undertake and participate in activities related to innovation and leading to 

economic or social impact; 

(5) broaden the participation of all types of institutions of higher education 

in activities to meet STEM workforce needs and promote innovation and knowledge transfer; and 

(6) build lasting partnerships with local and regional businesses, local and 

State governments, and other relevant entities. 

(d) ADDITIONAL CRITERIA.—In selecting grant recipients under this section, the Director shall also consider the extent to which the applicants are able to demonstrate 

evidence of institutional support for, and commitment to— 

(1) achieving the goals of the program as described in subsection (c); 

(2) expansion to an institution-wide program if the initial proposal is not for 

an institution-wide program; and 

(3) sustaining any new innovation tools and resources generated from funding 

under this program. 

(e) LIMITATION.—No funds provided under this section may be used to construct 

or renovate a building or structure. 

SEC. 228. PRIZE AWARDS. 

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This section may be cited as the ‘‘Generating Extraordinary 

New Innovations in the United States Act of 2010’’. 

(b) IN GENERAL.—The Director shall carry out a pilot program to award innovation inducement cash prizes in any area of research supported by the Foundation. 

The Director may carry out a program of cash prizes only in conformity with this 

section. 

(c) TOPICS.—In identifying topics for prize competitions under this section, the Director shall— 

(1) consult widely both within and outside the Federal Government; 

(2) give priority to high-risk, high-reward research challenges and to problems 

whose solution could improve the economic competitiveness of the United 

States; and 

(3) give consideration to the extent to which the topics have the potential to 

raise public awareness about federally sponsored research. 

(d) TYPES OF CONTESTS.—The Director shall consider all categories of innovation 

inducement prizes, including— 

(1) contests in which the award is to the first team or individual who accomplishes a stated objective; and 

(2) contests in which the winner is the team or individual who comes closest 

to achieving an objective within a specified time. 

(e) ADVERTISING AND ANNOUNCEMENT.— 

(1) ADVERTISING AND SOLICITATION OF COMPETITORS.—The Director shall 

widely advertise prize competitions to encourage broad participation, including 

by individuals, institutions of higher education, nonprofit organizations, and 

businesses. 

(2) ANNOUNCEMENT THROUGH FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE.—The Director shall 

announce each prize competition by publishing a notice in the Federal Register. 

This notice shall include the subject of the competition, the duration of the competition, the eligibility requirements for participation in the competition, the 

process for participants to register for the competition, the amount of the prize, 

and the criteria for awarding the prize, including the method by which the prize 

winner or winners will be selected. 

(3) TIME TO ANNOUNCEMENT.—The Director shall announce a prize competition within 18 months after receipt of appropriated funds. 

(f) FUNDING.— 

(1) FUNDING SOURCES.—Prizes under this section shall consist of Federal appropriated funds and any funds raised pursuant to donations authorized under 

section 11(f) of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1870(f)) 

for specific prize competitions. 

(2) ANNOUNCEMENT OF PRIZES.—The Director may not issue a notice as required by subsection (e)(2) until all of the funds needed to pay out the announced amount of the prize have been appropriated or committed in writing 

by another entity pursuant to paragraph (1). 

(g) ELIGIBILITY.—To be eligible to win a prize under this section, an individual or 

entity— 

(1) shall have complied with all of the requirements under this section; 

(2) in the case of a private entity, shall be incorporated in and maintain a 

primary place of business in the United States, and in the case of an individual, 

whether participating singly or in a group, shall be a United States citizen or 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
26 

national, or an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence; 

(3) shall not be a Federal entity, a Federal employee acting within the scope 

of his or her employment, or a person employed at a Federal laboratory acting 

within the scope of his or her employment; and 

(4) shall not have utilized Federal funds to engage in the research for which 

the prize is being awarded. 

(h) AWARDS.— (1) NUMBER OF COMPETITIONS.—The Director may announce up to 5 prize 

competitions through the end of fiscal year 2013. 

(2) SIZE OF AWARD.—The Director may determine the amount of each prize award based on the prize topic, but no award shall be less than $1,000,000 or 

greater than $3,000,000. 

(3) SELECTING WINNERS.—The Director may convene an expert panel to select 

a winner of a prize competition. If the panel is unable to select a winner, the 

Director shall determine the winner of the prize. 

(4) PUBLIC OUTREACH.—The Director shall publicly award prizes utilizing the 

Foundation’s existing public affairs and public outreach resources. 

(i) ADMINISTERING THE COMPETITION.—The Director may enter into an agreement 

with a private, nonprofit entity to administer the prize competition, subject to the 

provisions of this section. 

(j) INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.—The Federal Government shall not, by virtue of offering or awarding a prize under this section, be entitled to any intellectual property 

rights derived as a consequence of, or in direct relation to, the participation by a 

registered participant in a competition authorized by this section. This subsection 

shall not be construed to prevent the Federal Government from negotiating a license 

for the use of intellectual property developed for a prize competition under this section. 

(k) LIABILITY.—The Director may require a registered participant in a prize competition under this section to waive liability against the Federal Government for injuries and damages that result from participation in such competition. 

(l) NONSUBSTITUTION.—Any programs created under this section shall not be considered a substitute for Federal research and development programs. 

(m) REPORTING REQUIREMENT.—Not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the National Science Board shall transmit to Congress a report 

containing the results of a review and assessment of the pilot program under this 

section, including— 

(1) a description of the nature and status of all completed or ongoing prize 

competitions carried out under this section, including any scientific achievements, publications, intellectual property, or commercialized technology that resulted from such competitions; 

(2) any recommendations regarding changes to, the termination of, or continuation of the pilot program; 

(3) an analysis of whether the program is attracting contestants more diverse 

than the Foundation’s traditional academic constituency; 

(4) an analysis of whether public awareness of innovation or of the goal of 

the particular prize or prizes is enhanced; 

(5) an analysis of whether the Foundation’s public image or ability to increase 

public scientific literacy is enhanced through the use of innovation inducement 

prizes; and 

(6) an analysis of the extent to which private funds are being used to support 

registered participants. 

(n) EARLY TERMINATION OF CONTESTS.—The Director shall terminate a prize contest before any registered participant wins if the Director determines that an unregistered entity has produced an innovation that would otherwise have qualified for 

the prize award. 

(o) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.— 

(A) AWARDS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Director for 

the period encompassing fiscal years 2011 through 2013 $12,000,000 for 

carrying out this section. 

(B) ADMINISTRATION.—Of the amounts authorized in subparagraph (A), 

not more than 15 percent for each fiscal year shall be available for the administrative costs of carrying out this section. 

(2) CARRYOVER OF FUNDS.—Funds appropriated for prize awards under this 

section shall remain available until expended, and may be transferred, reprogrammed, or expended for other purposes as authorized by law only after the 

expiration of 7 fiscal years after the fiscal year for which the funds were originally appropriated. No provision in this section permits obligation or payment 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
27 

of funds in violation of section 1341 of title 31 of the United States Code (commonly referred to as the Anti-Deficiency Act). 

Subtitle C—STEM Education and Workforce 

Training 

SEC. 241. GRADUATE STUDENT SUPPORT. 

(a) FINDING.—The Congress finds that— 

(1) the Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship program is 

an important program for training the next generation of scientists and engineers in team-based interdisciplinary research and problem solving, and for providing them with the many additional skills, such as communication skills, 

needed to thrive in diverse STEM careers; and 

(2) the Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship program is 

no less valuable to the preparation and support of graduate students than the 

Foundation’s Graduate Research Fellowship program. 

(b) EQUAL TREATMENT OF IGERT AND GRF.—Beginning in fiscal year 2011, the 

Director shall increase or, if necessary, decrease funding for the Foundation’s Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship program (or any program by 

which it is replaced) at least at the same rate as it increases or decreases funding 

for the Graduate Research Fellowship program. 

(c) SUPPORT FOR GRADUATE STUDENT RESEARCH FROM THE RESEARCH ACCOUNT.— 

For each of the fiscal years 2011 through 2015, at least 50 percent of the total Foundation funds allocated to the Integrative Graduate Education and Research 

Traineeship program and the Graduate Research Fellowship program shall come 

from funds appropriated for Research and Related Activities. 

(d) COST OF EDUCATION ALLOWANCE FOR GRF PROGRAM.—Section 10 of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1869) is amended— 

(1) by inserting ‘‘(a)’’ before ‘‘The Foundation is authorized’’; and 

(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection: 

‘‘(b) The Director shall establish for each year the amount to be awarded for scholarships and fellowships under this section for that year. Each such scholarship and 

fellowship shall include a cost of education allowance of $12,000, subject to any restrictions on the use of cost of education allowance as determined by the Director.’’. 

SEC. 242. POSTDOCTORAL FELLOWSHIP IN STEM EDUCATION RESEARCH. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Director shall establish postdoctoral fellowships in STEM 

education research to provide recent doctoral degree graduates in STEM fields with 

the necessary skills to assume leadership roles in STEM education research, program development, and evaluation in our Nation’s diverse educational institutions. 

(b) AWARDS.— 

(1) DURATION.—Fellowships may be awarded under this section for a period 

of up to 24 months in duration, renewable for an additional 12 months. The Director shall establish criteria for eligibility for renewal of the fellowship. 

(2) STIPEND.—The Director shall determine the amount of the award for a fellowship, which shall include a stipend and a research allowance, and may include an educational allowance. 

(3) LOCATION.—A fellowship shall be awarded for research at any institution 

of higher education that offers degrees in fields supported by the Foundation, 

or at any institution or organization that the Director determines is eligible for 

education research grants from the Foundation. 

(4) NUMBER OF AWARDS.—The Director may award up to 20 new fellowships 

per year. 

(c) RESEARCH.—Fellowships under this section shall be awarded for research on 

STEM education at any educational level, including grades pre-K-12, undergraduate, graduate, and general public education, in both formal and informal settings. Research topics may include— 

(1) learning processes and progressions; 

(2) knowledge transfer, including curriculum development; 

(3) uses of technology as teaching and learning tools; 

(4) integrating STEM fields; and 

(5) assessment of student learning and program evaluation. 

(d) ELIGIBILITY.—To be eligible for a fellowship under this section, an individual 

must— 

(1) be a United States citizen or national, or an alien lawfully admitted to 

the United States for permanent residence, at the time of application; and 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
28 

(2) have received a doctoral degree in one of the STEM fields supported by 

the Foundation within 3 years prior to the fellowship application deadline. 

SEC. 243. ROBERT NOYCE TEACHER SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM. 

Section 10A of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (42 

U.S.C. 1862n–1a) is amended in subsection (h)(1) by— 

(1) striking ‘‘50’’ and inserting ‘‘30’’; and 

(2) striking ‘‘which may be provided in cash or in-kind’’ and inserting ‘‘which 

shall be provided in cash’’. 

SEC. 244. INSTITUTIONS SERVING PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES. 

For the purposes of the activities and programs supported by the Foundation, institutions of higher education chartered to serve large numbers of students with disabilities, including Gallaudet University, Landmark College, and the National Technical Institute for the Deaf, shall have a designation consistent with the designation 

for other institutions that serve populations underrepresented in STEM to ensure 

that institutions of higher education chartered to serve persons with disabilities can 

benefit from STEM bridge programs and from research partnerships with major research universities. Nothing in this section shall be construed to amend or otherwise 

affect any of the definitions for minority-serving institutions under title III or title 

V of the Higher Education Act of 1965. 

SEC. 245. INSTITUTIONAL INTEGRATION. 

(a) INNOVATION THROUGH INSTITUTIONAL INTEGRATION.—The Director shall award 

grants for the institutional integration of projects funded by the Foundation with 

a focus on education, or on broadening participation in STEM by underrepresented 

groups, for the purpose of increasing collaboration and coordination across funded 

projects and institutions and expanding the impact of such projects within and 

among institutions of higher education in an innovative and sustainable manner. 

(b) PROGRAM ACTIVITIES.—The program under this section shall support integrative activities that involve the strategic and innovative combination of Foundationfunded projects and that provide for— 

(1) additional opportunities to increase the recruitment, retention, and degree 

attainment of underrepresented groups in STEM disciplines; 

(2) the inclusion of programming, practices, and policies that encourage the 

integration of education and research; 

(3) seamless transitions from one educational level to another; and 

(4) other activities that expand and deepen the impact of Foundation-funded 

projects with a focus on education, or on broadening participation in STEM by 

underrepresented groups, and enhance their sustainability. 

(c) REVIEW CRITERIA.—In selecting recipients of grants under this section, the Director shall consider at a minimum— 

(1) the extent to which the proposed project addresses the goals of project and 

program integration and adds value to the existing funded projects; 

(2) the extent to which there is a proven record of success for the existing 

projects on which the proposed integration project is based; and 

(3) the extent to which the proposed project addresses the modification of programming, practices, and policies necessary to achieve the purpose described in 

subsection (a). 

(d) PRIORITY.—In selecting recipients of grants under this section, the Director 

shall give priority to proposals for which a senior institutional administrator, including a dean or other administrator of equal or higher rank, serves as the principal 

investigator. 

SEC. 246. POSTDOCTORAL RESEARCH FELLOWSHIPS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Director shall establish a Foundation-wide postdoctoral research fellowship program, to award competitive, merit-based postdoctoral research 

fellowships in any field of research supported by the Foundation. 

(b) DURATION AND AMOUNT.—Fellowships may be awarded under this section for 

a period of up to 3 years in duration. The Director shall determine the amount of 

the award for a fellowship, which shall include a stipend and a research allowance, 

and may include an educational allowance. 

(c) ELIGIBILITY.—To be eligible to receive a fellowship under this section, an individual— 

(1) must be a United States citizen or national, or an alien lawfully admitted 

to the United States for permanent residence, at the time of application; 

(2) must have received a doctoral degree in any field of research supported 

by the Foundation within 3 years prior to the fellowship application deadline, 

or will complete a doctoral degree no more than 1 year after the application 

deadline; and 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
29 

(3) may not have previously received funding as the principal investigator of 

a research grant from the Foundation, unless such funding was received as a 

graduate student. 

(d) PRIORITY.—In evaluating applications for fellowships under this section, the 

Director shall give priority to applications that include— 

(1) proposals for interdisciplinary research; or 

(2) proposals for high-risk, high-reward research. 

(e) ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS.—In evaluating applications for fellowships 

under this section, the Director shall give consideration to the goal of promoting the 

participation of individuals identified in section 33 or 34 of the Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act (42 U.S.C. 1885a or 1885b). 

(f) NONSUBSTITUTION.—The fellowship program authorized under this section is 

not intended to replace or reduce support for postdoctoral research through existing 

programs at the Foundation. 

SEC. 247. BROADENING PARTICIPATION TRAINING AND OUTREACH. 

The Director shall provide education and training— 

(1) to Foundation staff and grant proposal review panels on effective mechanisms and tools for broadening participation in STEM by underrepresented 

groups, including reviewer selection and mitigation of implicit bias in the review 

process; and 

(2) to Foundation staff on related outreach approaches. 

SEC. 248. TRANSFORMING UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION IN STEM. 

Section 17 of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (42 

U.S.C. 1862n–6) is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘SEC. 17. TRANSFORMING UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION IN STEM. 

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Director shall award grants, on a competitive, merit-reviewed basis, to institutions of higher education (or to consortia thereof) to reform 

undergraduate STEM education for the purpose of increasing the number and quality of students studying toward and completing baccalaureate degrees in STEM and 

improving the STEM learning outcomes for all undergraduate students, including 

through— 

‘‘(1) development, implementation, and assessment of innovative, researchbased approaches to transforming the teaching and learning of disciplinary or 

interdisciplinary STEM at the undergraduate level; and 

‘‘(2) expansion of successful STEM reform efforts beyond a single course or 

group of courses to achieve reform within an entire academic unit, or expansion 

of successful reform efforts beyond a single academic unit to other STEM academic units within an institution or to comparable academic units at other institutions. 

‘‘(b) USES OF FUNDS.—Activities supported by grants under this section may include— 

‘‘(1) creation of multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary courses or programs that 

formalize collaborations for the purpose of improved student instruction and research in STEM; 

‘‘(2) expansion of undergraduate STEM research opportunities to include 

interdisciplinary research opportunities and research opportunities in industry, 

at Federal labs, and at international research institutions or research sites; 

‘‘(3) implementation or expansion of bridge programs, including programs that 

address student transition from 2-year to 4-year institutions, and cohort, tutoring, or mentoring programs proven to enhance student recruitment or persistence to degree completion in STEM, including recruitment or persistence to degree completion of individuals identified in section 33 or 34 of the Science and 

Engineering Equal Opportunities Act (42 U.S.C. 1885a or 1885b); 

‘‘(4) improvement of undergraduate STEM education for nonmajors, including 

education majors; 

‘‘(5) implementation of evidence-based, technology-driven reform efforts that 

directly impact undergraduate STEM instruction or research experiences; 

‘‘(6) development and implementation of faculty and graduate teaching assistant development programs focused on improved instruction, mentoring, assessment of student learning, and support of undergraduate STEM students; 

‘‘(7) support for graduate students and postdoctoral fellows to participate in 

instructional or assessment activities at primarily undergraduate institutions; 

‘‘(8) research on teaching and learning of STEM at the undergraduate level 

related to the proposed reform effort, including assessment and evaluation of 

the proposed reform activities, research on scalability and sustainability of approaches to reform, and development and implementation of longitudinal studies of students included in the proposed reform effort; and 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
30 

‘‘(9) support for initiatives that advance the integration of global challenges 

such as sustainability into disciplinary and interdisciplinary STEM education. 

‘‘(c) PARTNERSHIP.—An institution of higher education may partner with one or 

more other nonprofit education or research organizations, including scientific and 

engineering societies, for the purposes of carrying out the activities authorized 

under this section. 

‘‘(d) SELECTION PROCESS.— 

‘‘(1) APPLICATIONS.—An institution of higher education seeking a grant under 

this section shall submit an application to the Director at such time, in such 

manner, and containing such information as the Director may require. The application shall include, at a minimum— 

‘‘(A) a description of the proposed reform effort; 

‘‘(B) a description of the research findings that will serve as the basis for 

the proposed reform effort or, in the case of applications that propose an 

expansion of a previously implemented reform effort, a description of the 

previously implemented reform effort, including indicators of success such 

as data on student recruitment, persistence to degree completion, and academic achievement; 

‘‘(C) evidence of institutional support for, and commitment to, the proposed reform effort, including long-term commitment to implement successful strategies from the current reform effort beyond the academic unit or 

units included in the grant proposal or to disseminate successful strategies 

to other institutions; 

‘‘(D) a description of existing or planned institutional policies and practices regarding faculty hiring, promotion, tenure, and teaching assignment 

that reward faculty contributions to undergraduate STEM education; and 

‘‘(E) a description of the plans for assessment and evaluation of the proposed reform activities, including evidence of participation by individuals 

with experience in assessment and evaluation of teaching and learning programs. 

‘‘(2) REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS.—In selecting grant recipients under this section, the Director shall consider at a minimum— 

‘‘(A) the likelihood of success in undertaking the proposed effort at the institution submitting the application, including the extent to which the faculty, staff, and administrators of the institution are committed to making 

the proposed institutional reform a priority of the participating academic 

unit or units; 

‘‘(B) the degree to which the proposed reform will contribute to change 

in institutional culture and policy such that a greater value is placed on 

faculty engagement in undergraduate education; 

‘‘(C) the likelihood that the institution will sustain or expand the reform 

beyond the period of the grant; and 

‘‘(D) the degree to which scholarly assessment and evaluation plans are 

included in the design of the reform effort, including the degree to which 

such assessment and evaluation contribute to the systematic accumulation 

of knowledge on STEM education. 

‘‘(3) PRIORITY.—For proposals that include an expansion of existing reform efforts beyond a single academic unit, the Director shall give priority to proposals 

for which a senior institutional administrator, including a dean or other administrator of equal or higher rank, serves as the principal investigator or a coprincipal investigator. 

‘‘(4) GRANT DISTRIBUTION.—The Director shall ensure, to the extent practicable, that grants awarded under this section are made to a variety of types 

of institutions of higher education.’’. 

SEC. 249. 21ST CENTURY GRADUATE EDUCATION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Director shall award grants, on a competitive, merit-reviewed basis, to institutions of higher education to implement or expand researchbased reforms in master’s and doctoral level STEM education that emphasize preparation for diverse careers utilizing STEM degrees, including at diverse types of institutions of higher education, in industry, and at government agencies and research 

laboratories. 

(b) USES OF FUNDS.—Activities supported by grants under this section may include— 

(1) creation of multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary courses or programs for 

the purpose of improved student instruction and research in STEM; 

(2) expansion of graduate STEM research opportunities to include interdisciplinary research opportunities and research opportunities in industry, at 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
31 

Federal laboratories, and at international research institutions or research 

sites; 

(3) development and implementation of future faculty training programs focused on improved instruction, mentoring, assessment of student learning, and 

support of undergraduate STEM students; 

(4) support and training for graduate students to participate in instructional 

activities beyond the traditional teaching assistantship, and especially as part 

of ongoing educational reform efforts, including at pre-K-12 schools, informal 

science education institutions, and primarily undergraduate institutions; 

(5) creation, improvement, or expansion of innovative graduate programs such 

as science master’s degree programs; 

(6) development and implementation of seminars, workshops, and other professional development activities that increase the ability of graduate students 

to engage in innovation, technology transfer, and entrepreneurship; 

(7) development and implementation of seminars, workshops, and other professional development activities that increase the ability of graduate students 

to effectively communicate their research findings to technical audiences outside 

of their own discipline and to nontechnical audiences; 

(8) expansion of successful STEM reform efforts beyond a single academic 

unit to other STEM academic units within an institution or to comparable academic units at other institutions; and 

(9) research on teaching and learning of STEM at the graduate level related 

to the proposed reform effort, including assessment and evaluation of the proposed reform activities and research on scalability and sustainability of approaches to reform. 

(c) PARTNERSHIP.—An institution of higher education may partner with one or 

more other nonprofit education or research organizations, including scientific and 

engineering societies, for the purposes of carrying out the activities authorized 

under this section. 

(d) SELECTION PROCESS.— 

(1) APPLICATIONS.—An institution of higher education seeking a grant under 

this section shall submit an application to the Director at such time, in such 

manner, and containing such information as the Director may require. The application shall include, at a minimum— 

(A) a description of the proposed reform effort; 

(B) in the case of applications that propose an expansion of a previously 

implemented reform effort at the applicant’s institution or at other institutions, a description of the previously implemented reform effort; 

(C) evidence of institutional support for, and commitment to, the proposed 

reform effort, including long-term commitment to implement successful 

strategies from the current reform effort beyond the academic unit or units 

included in the grant proposal or to disseminate successful strategies to 

other institutions; and 

(D) a description of the plans for assessment and evaluation of the grant 

proposed reform activities. 

(2) REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS.—In selecting grant recipients under this section, 

the Director shall consider at a minimum— 

(A) the likelihood of success in undertaking the proposed effort at the institution submitting the application, including the extent to which the faculty, staff, and administrators of the institution are committed to making 

the proposed institutional reform a priority of the participating academic 

unit or units; 

(B) the degree to which the proposed reform will contribute to change in 

institutional culture and policy such that a greater value is placed on preparing graduate students for diverse careers utilizing STEM degrees; 

(C) the likelihood that the institution will sustain or expand the reform 

beyond the period of the grant; and 

(D) the degree to which scholarly assessment and evaluation plans are included in the design of the reform effort. 

(e) REPEAL.—Section 7034 of the America COMPETES Act (42 U.S.C. 1862o–13) 

is repealed. 

SEC. 250. UNDERGRADUATE BROADENING PARTICIPATION PROGRAM. 

(a) UNDERGRADUATE BROADENING PARTICIPATION PROGRAM.—The Foundation 

shall continue to support the Historically Black Colleges and Universities Undergraduate Program, the Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation program, 

and the Tribal Colleges and Universities Program as separate programs at least 

through September 30, 2011. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
32 

(b) PLAN.—Prior to any realignment or consolidation of the programs described in 

subsection (a), in addition to the Hispanic-Serving Institutions Undergraduate Program required by section 7033 of the America COMPETES Act (42 U.S.C. 1862o– 

12), the Director shall develop a plan clarifying the objectives and rationale for such 

changes. The plan shall include a description of how such changes would result in— 

(1) meeting or strengthening the common goal of the separate programs to increase the number of individuals from underrepresented groups attaining undergraduate STEM degrees; and 

(2) addressing the unique needs of the different types of minority serving institutions and underrepresented groups currently provided for by the separate 

programs. 

(c) RECOMMENDATIONS.—In the development of the plan required under subsection (b), the Director shall at a minimum— 

(1) consider the recommendations and findings of the National Academy of 

Sciences report required by section 7032 of the America COMPETES Act (Public 

Law 110–69); and 

(2) solicit recommendations and feedback from a wide range of stakeholders, 

including representatives from minority serving institutions, other institutions 

of higher education, and other entities with expertise on effective mechanisms 

to increase the recruitment and retention of members of underrepresented 

groups in STEM fields, and the attainment of STEM degrees by underrepresented groups. 

(d) APPROVAL BY CONGRESS.—The plan developed under this section shall be 

transmitted to Congress at least 3 months prior to the implementation of any realignment or consolidation of the programs described in subsection (a). 

SEC. 251. GRAND CHALLENGES IN EDUCATION RESEARCH. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Director and the Secretary of Education shall collaborate, 

in consultation with the Director of the National Institutes of Health, in— 

(1) identifying, prioritizing, and developing strategies to address grand challenges in research and development on the teaching and learning of STEM at 

the pre-K-12 level, in formal and informal settings, for diverse learning populations, including individuals identified in section 33 or 34 of the Science and 

Engineering Equal Opportunities Act (42 U.S.C. 1885a or 1885b), and students 

in rural schools; 

(2) carrying out research and development to address the grand challenges 

identified in paragraph (1); and 

(3) ensuring the dissemination of the results of such research and development. 

(b) STAKEHOLDER INPUT.—In identifying the grand challenges required in subsection (a), the Director and the Secretary shall— 

(1) take into consideration critical research gaps identified in existing reports, 

including reports by the National Academies, on the teaching and learning of 

STEM at the pre-K-12 level in formal and informal settings; and 

(2) solicit input from a wide range of stakeholders, including local and State 

education officials, STEM teachers, STEM education researchers, scientific and 

engineering societies, STEM faculty at institutions of higher education, informal 

STEM education providers, businesses with a large STEM workforce, and other 

stakeholders in the teaching and learning of STEM at the pre-K-12 level, and 

may enter into an arrangement with the National Research Council for these 

purposes. 

(c) TOPICS TO CONSIDER.—In identifying the grand challenges required in subsection (a), the Director and the Secretary, in order to provide students with increased access to rigorous courses of study in STEM, increase the number of students who are prepared for advanced study and careers in STEM, and increase the 

effective teaching of STEM subjects, shall at a minimum consider the following topics: 

(1) Research on scalability, sustainability, and replication of successful STEM 

activities, programs, and models, in formal and informal environments. 

(2) Research that utilizes a systems approach to identifying challenges and 

opportunities to improve the teaching and learning of STEM, including development and evaluation of model systems that support improved teaching and 

learning of STEM across entire school districts and States, and encompassing 

and integrating the teaching and learning of STEM in formal and informal 

venues, and in K-12 schools and institutions of higher education. 

(3) Research to understand what makes a STEM teacher effective and STEM 

teacher professional development effective, including development of tools and 

methodologies to measure STEM teacher effectiveness. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
33 

(4) Research and development on cyber-enabled tools and programs and television based tools and programs for learning and teaching STEM, including development of tools and methodologies for assessing cyber and television enabled 

teaching and learning. 

(5) Research and development on STEM teaching and learning in informal environments, including development of tools and methodologies for assessing 

STEM teaching and learning in informal environments. 

(6) Research and development on how integrating engineering with mathematics and science education may— 

(A) improve student learning of mathematics and science; 

(B) increase student interest and persistence in STEM; or 

(C) improve student understanding of engineering design principles and 

of the built world. 

(7) Research to understand what makes hands-on, inquiry-based classroom 

experiences effective, including development of tools and methodologies for assessing such experiences. 

(d) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment 

of this Act, the Director and the Secretary shall report back to Congress with a description of— 

(1) the grand challenges identified pursuant to this section; 

(2) the role of each agency in supporting research and development activities 

to address the grand challenges; 

(3) the common metrics that will be used to assess progress toward meeting 

the grand challenges; 

(4) plans for periodically updating the grand challenges; 

(5) how the agencies will disseminate the results of research and development 

activities carried out under this section to STEM education practitioners, to 

other Federal agencies that support STEM programs and activities, and to nonFederal funders of STEM education; and 

(6) how the agencies will support implementation of best practices identified 

by the research and development activities. 

SEC. 252. RESEARCH EXPERIENCES FOR UNDERGRADUATES. 

(a) RESEARCH SITES.—The Director shall award grants, on a merit-reviewed, competitive basis, to institutions of higher education, nonprofit organizations, or consortia of such institutions and organizations, for sites designated by the Director to 

provide research experiences for 10 or more undergraduate STEM students, with 

consideration given to the goal of promoting the participation of individuals identified in section 33 or 34 of the Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act (42 

U.S.C. 1885a or 1885b). The Director shall ensure that— 

(1) at least half of the students participating in a program funded by a grant 

under this subsection at each site shall be recruited from institutions of higher 

education where research opportunities in STEM are limited, including 2-year 

institutions; 

(2) the awards provide undergraduate research experiences in a wide range 

of STEM disciplines; 

(3) the awards support a variety of projects, including independent investigator-led projects, interdisciplinary projects, and multi-institutional projects (including virtual projects); 

(4) students participating in each program funded have mentors, including 

during the academic year to the extent practicable, to help connect the students’ 

research experiences to the overall academic course of study and to help students achieve success in courses of study leading to a baccalaureate degree in 

a STEM field; 

(5) mentors and students are supported with appropriate salary or stipends; 

and 

(6) student participants are tracked, for employment and continued matriculation in STEM fields, through receipt of the undergraduate degree and for at 

least 3 years thereafter. 

(b) INCLUSION OF UNDERGRADUATES IN STANDARD RESEARCH GRANTS.—The Director shall require that every recipient of a research grant from the Foundation proposing to include 1 or more undergraduate students in carrying out the research 

under the grant shall request support, including stipend support, for such undergraduate students as part of the research proposal itself rather than as a supplement to the research proposal, unless such undergraduate participation was not 

foreseeable at the time of the original proposal. 

SEC. 253. LABORATORY SCIENCE PILOT PROGRAM. 

Section 7026 of the America COMPETES Act (Public Law 110–69) is amended by 

striking subsections (d) and (e). 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
34 

SEC. 254. STEM INDUSTRY INTERNSHIP PROGRAMS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Director may award grants, on a competitive, merit-reviewed basis, to institutions of higher education, or consortia thereof, to establish 

or expand partnerships with local or regional private sector entities, for the purpose 

of providing undergraduate students with integrated internship experiences that 

connect private sector internship experiences with the students’ STEM coursework. 

Such partnerships may also include industry or professional associations. 

(b) PRIORITY.—In awarding grants under this section, the Director shall give priority to institutions of higher education or consortia thereof that demonstrate significant outreach to and coordination with local or regional private sector entities 

in developing academic courses designed to provide students with the skills necessary for employment in local or regional companies. 

(c) COST-SHARE.—The Director shall require a 50 percent non-Federal cost-share 

from partnerships established or expanded under this section. 

(d) RESTRICTION.—No Federal funds provided under this section may be used— 

(1) for the purpose of providing stipends or compensation to students for private sector internships; or 

(2) as payment or reimbursement to private sector entities. 

(e) REPORT.—Not less than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the 

Director shall submit a report to Congress on the number and total value of awards 

made under this section, the number of students affected by those awards, and any 

evidence of the effect of those awards on workforce preparation and jobs placement 

for participating students. 

SEC. 255. TRIBAL COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES PROGRAM. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Director shall continue to support a program to award 

grants on a competitive, merit-reviewed basis to tribal colleges and universities (as 

defined in section 316 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1059c)), including institutions described in section 317 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 1059d), to enhance the quality of undergraduate STEM education at such institutions and to increase the retention and graduation rates of Native American students pursuing associate’s or baccalaureate degrees in STEM. 

(b) PROGRAM COMPONENTS.—Grants awarded under this section shall support— 

(1) activities to improve courses and curriculum in STEM; 

(2) faculty development; 

(3) stipends for undergraduate students participating in research; and 

(4) other activities consistent with subsection (a), as determined by the Director. 

(c) INSTRUMENTATION.—Funding provided under this section may be used for instrumentation. 

TITLE III—STEM EDUCATION 

SEC. 301. COORDINATION OF FEDERAL STEM EDUCATION. 

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This section may be cited as the ‘‘STEM Education Coordination Act of 2010’’. 

(b) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘STEM’’ means science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. 

(c) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy 

shall establish a committee under the National Science and Technology Council with 

the responsibility to coordinate Federal programs and activities in support of STEM 

education, including at the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, 

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Education, and all other Federal 

agencies that have programs and activities in support of STEM education. 

(d) RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE COMMITTEE.—The committee established under subsection (c) shall— 

(1) coordinate the STEM education activities and programs of the Federal 

agencies; 

(2) develop, implement through the participating agencies, and update once 

every 5 years a 5-year STEM education strategic plan, which shall— 

(A) specify and prioritize annual and long-term objectives; 

(B) specify the common metrics that will be used to assess progress toward achieving the objectives; 

(C) describe the approaches that will be taken by each participating agency to assess the effectiveness of its STEM education programs and activities; and 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
35 

(D) with respect to subparagraph (A), describe the role of each agency in 

supporting programs and activities designed to achieve the objectives; and 

(3) establish, periodically update, and maintain an inventory of federally 

sponsored STEM education programs and activities, including documentation of 

assessments of the effectiveness of such programs and activities and rates of 

participation by underrepresented minorities in such programs and activities. 

(e) RESPONSIBILITIES OF OSTP.—The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall encourage and monitor the efforts of the participating agencies 

to ensure that the strategic plan under subsection (d)(2) is developed and executed 

effectively and that the objectives of the strategic plan are met. 

(f) REPORT.—The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall 

transmit a report annually to Congress at the time of the President’s budget request 

describing the plan required under subsection (d)(2). The annual report shall include— 

(1) a description of the STEM education programs and activities for the previous and current fiscal years, and the proposed programs and activities under 

the President’s budget request, of each participating Federal agency; 

(2) the levels of funding for each participating Federal agency for the programs and activities described under paragraph (1) for the previous fiscal year 

and under the President’s budget request; 

(3) except for the initial annual report, a description of the progress made in 

carrying out the implementation plan, including a description of the outcome of 

any program assessments completed in the previous year, and any changes 

made to that plan since the previous annual report; and 

(4) a description of how the participating Federal agencies will disseminate 

information about federally supported resources for STEM education practitioners, including teacher professional development programs, to States and to 

STEM education practitioners, including to teachers and administrators in 

high-need schools, as defined in section 200 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 

(20 U.S.C. 1021). 

SEC. 302. ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON STEM EDUCATION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The President shall establish or designate an advisory committee on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. 

(b) MEMBERSHIP.—The advisory committee established or designated by the President under subsection (a) shall be chaired by at least 2 members of the President’s 

Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, with the remaining advisory committee membership consisting of non-Federal members who are specially qualified 

to provide the President with advice and information on STEM education. Membership of the advisory committee, at a minimum, shall include individuals from the 

following categories of individuals and organizations: 

(1) STEM educator professional associations. 

(2) Organizations that provide informal STEM education activities. 

(3) Institutions of higher education. 

(4) Scientific and engineering professional societies. 

(5) Business and industry associations. 

(6) Foundations that fund STEM education activities. 

(c) RESPONSIBILITIES.—The responsibilities of the advisory committee shall include— 

(1) soliciting input from teachers, administrators, local education agencies, 

States, and other public and private STEM education stakeholder groups for the 

purpose of informing the Federal agencies that support STEM education programs on the STEM education needs of States and school districts; 

(2) soliciting input from all STEM education stakeholder groups regarding 

STEM education programs, including STEM education research programs, supported by Federal agencies; 

(3) providing advice to the Federal agencies that support STEM education 

programs on how their programs can be better aligned with the needs of States 

and school districts as identified in paragraph (1), consistent with the mission 

of each agency; and 

(4) offering guidance to the President on current STEM education activities, 

research findings, and best practices, with the purpose of increasing 

connectivity between public and private STEM education efforts. 

SEC. 303. STEM EDUCATION AT THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY. 

(a) DEFINITIONS.—Section 5002 of the America COMPETES Act (42 U.S.C. 16531) 

is amended— 

(1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (4) as paragraphs (3) through (5), 

respectively; and 

(2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new paragraph: 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
36 

‘‘(2) ENERGY SYSTEMS SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING.—The term ‘energy systems 

science and engineering’ means— 

‘‘(A) nuclear science and engineering, including— 

‘‘(i) nuclear engineering; 

‘‘(ii) nuclear chemistry; 

‘‘(iii) radiochemistry; and 

‘‘(iv) health physics; 

‘‘(B) hydrocarbon system science and engineering, including— 

‘‘(i) petroleum or reservoir engineering; 

‘‘(ii) environmental geoscience; 

‘‘(iii) petrophysics; 

‘‘(iv) geophysics; 

‘‘(v) geochemistry; 

‘‘(vi) petroleum geology; 

‘‘(vii) ocean engineering; 

‘‘(viii) environmental engineering; and 

‘‘(ix) carbon capture and sequestration science and engineering; 

‘‘(C) energy efficiency and renewable energy technology systems science 

and engineering, including with respect to— 

‘‘(i) solar technology systems; 

‘‘(ii) wind technology systems; 

‘‘(iii) buildings technology systems; 

‘‘(iv) transportation technology systems; 

‘‘(v) hydropower systems; and 

‘‘(vi) geothermal systems; and 

‘‘(D) energy storage and distribution systems science and engineering, including with respect to— 

‘‘(i) energy storage; and 

‘‘(ii) energy delivery.’’. 

(b) SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION PRO- GRAMS.—Subpart B of the Department of Energy Science Education Enhancement 

Act (42 U.S.C. 7381g et seq.) is amended— 

(1) in section 3170— 

(A) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows: 

‘‘(1) DIRECTOR.—The term ‘Director’ means the Director of STEM Education 

appointed or designated under section 3171(c)(1).’’; 

(B) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); 

(C) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new paragraph: 

‘‘(2) ENERGY SYSTEMS SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING.—The term ‘energy systems 

science and engineering’ means— 

‘‘(A) nuclear science and engineering, including— 

‘‘(i) nuclear engineering; 

‘‘(ii) nuclear chemistry; 

‘‘(iii) radiochemistry; and 

‘‘(iv) health physics; 

‘‘(B) hydrocarbon system science and engineering, including— 

‘‘(i) petroleum or reservoir engineering; 

‘‘(ii) environmental geoscience; 

‘‘(iii) petrophysics; 

‘‘(iv) geophysics; 

‘‘(v) geochemistry; 

‘‘(vi) petroleum geology; 

‘‘(vii) ocean engineering; and 

‘‘(viii) environmental engineering; 

‘‘(C) energy efficiency and renewable energy technology systems science 

and engineering, including with respect to— 

‘‘(i) solar technology systems; 

‘‘(ii) wind technology systems; 

‘‘(iii) buildings technology systems; 

‘‘(iv) transportation technology systems; 

‘‘(v) hydropower systems; and 

‘‘(vi) geothermal systems; and 

‘‘(D) energy storage and distribution systems science and engineering, including with respect to— 

‘‘(i) energy storage; and 

‘‘(ii) energy delivery.’’; and 

(D) by adding at the end the following new paragraph: 

‘‘(4) STEM.—The term ‘STEM’ means science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics.’’; 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
37 

(2) by striking chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6; 

(3) by inserting after section 3170 the following new chapter: 

‘‘CHAPTER 1—STEM EDUCATION 

‘‘SEC. 3171. STEM EDUCATION. 

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Energy shall develop, conduct, support, promote, and coordinate formal and informal educational activities that leverage the 

Department’s unique content expertise and facilities to contribute to improving 

STEM education at all levels in the United States, and to enhance awareness and 

understanding of STEM, including energy sciences, in order to create a diverse 

skilled scientific and technical workforce essential to meeting the challenges facing 

the Department and the Nation in the 21st century. 

‘‘(b) PROGRAMS.—The Secretary shall carry out evidence-based programs designed 

to increase student interest and participation, improve public literacy and support, 

and improve the teaching and learning of energy systems science and engineering 

and other STEM disciplines supported by the Department. Programs authorized 

under this subsection may include— 

‘‘(1) informal educational programming designed to excite and inspire students and the general public about energy systems science and engineering and 

other STEM disciplines supported by the Department, while strengthening their 

content knowledge in these fields; 

‘‘(2) teacher training and professional development opportunities for pre-service and in-service elementary and secondary teachers designed to increase the 

content knowledge of teachers in energy systems science and engineering and 

other STEM disciplines supported by the Department, including through handson research experiences; 

‘‘(3) research opportunities for secondary school students, including internships at the National Laboratories, that provide secondary school students with 

hands-on research experiences as well as exposure to working scientists; 

‘‘(4) research opportunities at the National Laboratories for undergraduate 

and graduate students pursuing degrees in energy systems science and engineering and other STEM disciplines supported by the Department; and 

‘‘(5) competitive scholarships, fellowships, and traineeships for undergraduate 

and graduate students in energy systems science and engineering and other 

STEM disciplines supported by the Department. 

‘‘(c) ORGANIZATION OF STEM EDUCATION PROGRAMS.— 

‘‘(1) DIRECTOR OF STEM EDUCATION.—The Secretary shall appoint or designate 

a Director of STEM Education, who shall have the principal responsibility to 

oversee and coordinate all programs and activities of the Department in support 

of STEM education, including energy systems science and engineering education, across all functions of the Department. 

‘‘(2) QUALIFICATIONS.—The Director shall be an individual, who by reason of 

professional background and experience, is specially qualified to advise the Secretary on all matters pertaining to STEM education, including energy systems 

science and engineering education, at the Department. 

‘‘(3) DUTIES.—The Director shall— 

‘‘(A) oversee and coordinate all programs in support of STEM education, 

including energy systems science and engineering education, across all 

functions of the Department; 

‘‘(B) represent the Department as the principal interagency liaison for all 

STEM education programs, unless otherwise represented by the Secretary, 

the Under Secretary for Science, or the Under Secretary for Energy; 

‘‘(C) prepare the annual budget and advise the Under Secretary for 

Science and the Under Secretary for Energy on all budgetary issues for 

STEM education, including energy systems science and engineering education, relative to the programs of the Department; 

‘‘(D) establish, periodically update, and maintain a publicly accessible online inventory of STEM education programs and activities, including energy 

systems science and engineering education programs and activities; 

‘‘(E) develop, implement, and update the Department of Energy STEM 

education strategic plan, as required by subsection (d); 

‘‘(F) increase, to the maximum extent practicable, the participation and 

advancement of women and underrepresented minorities at every level of 

STEM education, including energy systems science and engineering education; and 

‘‘(G) perform such other matters relating to STEM education as are required by the Secretary, the Under Secretary for Science, or the Under Secretary for Energy. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
38 

‘‘(d) DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY STEM EDUCATION STRATEGIC PLAN.—The Director of 

STEM education appointed or designated under subsection (c)(1) shall develop, implement, and update once every 3 years a 3-year STEM education strategic plan for 

the Department, which shall— 

‘‘(1) identify and prioritize annual and long-term STEM education goals and 

objectives for the Department that are aligned with the overall goals of the National Science and Technology Council Committee on STEM Education Strategic 

plan required under section 301(d)(2) of the STEM Education Coordination Act 

of 2010; 

‘‘(2) describe the role of each program or activity of the Department in contributing to the goals and objectives identified under paragraph (1); 

‘‘(3) specify the metrics that will be used to assess progress toward achieving 

those goals and objectives; and 

‘‘(4) describe the approaches that will be taken to assess the effectiveness of 

each STEM education program and activity supported by the Department. 

‘‘(e) OUTREACH TO STUDENTS FROM UNDERREPRESENTED GROUPS.—In carrying out 

a program authorized under this section, the Secretary shall give consideration to 

the goal of promoting the participation of individuals identified in section 33 or 34 

of the Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act (42 U.S.C. 1885a or 1885b). 

‘‘(f) CONSULTATION AND PARTNERSHIP WITH OTHER AGENCIES.—In carrying out the 

programs and activities authorized under this section, the Secretary shall— 

‘‘(1) consult with the Secretary of Education and the Director of the National 

Science Foundation regarding activities designed to improve elementary and 

secondary STEM education; and 

‘‘(2) consult and partner with the Director of the National Science Foundation 

in carrying out programs under this section designed to build capacity in STEM 

education at the undergraduate and graduate level, including by supporting excellent proposals in energy systems science and engineering that are submitted 

for funding to the Foundation’s Advanced Technological Education Program.’’; 

and 

(4) in section 3191— 

(A) in subsection (a)— 

(i) by striking ‘‘web-based’’ and inserting ‘‘, through a publicly available website,’’ ; and 

(ii) by inserting ‘‘and project-based learning opportunities’’ after ‘‘laboratory experiments’’; 

(B) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting ‘‘, including energy systems science 

and engineering’’ after ‘‘the science of energy’’; and 

(C) by striking subsection (d). 

(c) ENERGY APPLIED SCIENCE TALENT EXPANSION PROGRAM FOR INSTITUTIONS OF

HIGHER EDUCATION.— 

(1) AMENDMENT.—Strike sections 5004 and 5005 of the America COMPETES 

Act (42 U.S.C. 16532 and 16533) and insert the following new section: 

‘‘SEC. 5004. ENERGY APPLIED SCIENCE TALENT EXPANSION PROGRAM FOR INSTITUTIONS OF 

HIGHER EDUCATION. 

‘‘(a) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this section are— 

‘‘(1) to address the decline in the number of and resources available to energy 

systems science and engineering programs at institutions of higher education, 

including community colleges; and 

‘‘(2) to increase the number of graduates with degrees in energy systems 

science and engineering, an area of strategic importance to the economic competitiveness and energy security of the United States. 

‘‘(b) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary shall award grants, on a competitive, meritreviewed basis, to institutions of higher education to implement or expand the energy systems science and engineering educational and technical training capabilities 

of the institution, and to provide merit-based financial support for master’s and doctoral level students pursuing courses of study and research in energy systems 

sciences and engineering. 

‘‘(c) USE OF FUNDS.—An institution of higher education that receives a grant 

under this section may use the grant to— 

‘‘(1) provide traineeships, including stipends and cost of education allowances, 

to master’s and doctoral students; 

‘‘(2) develop or expand multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary courses or programs; 

‘‘(3) recruit and retain new faculty; 

‘‘(4) develop or improve core and specialized course content; 

‘‘(5) encourage interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research collaborations; 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
39 

‘‘(6) support outreach efforts to recruit students, including individuals identified in section 33 or 34 of the Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act 

(42 U.S.C. 1885a or 1885b); and 

‘‘(7) pursue opportunities for collaboration with industry and National Laboratories. 

‘‘(d) CRITERIA.—Criteria for awarding a grant under this section shall be based 

on— 

‘‘(1) the potential to attract new students to the program; 

‘‘(2) academic rigor; and 

‘‘(3) the ability to offer hands-on education and training opportunities for 

graduate students in the emerging areas of energy systems science and engineering. 

‘‘(e) PRIORITY.—The Secretary shall give priority to proposals that involve active 

partnerships with a National Laboratory or other energy systems science and engineering related entity, as determined by the Secretary. 

‘‘(f) DURATION AND AMOUNT.— 

‘‘(1) DURATION.—A grant under this section may be for up to 5 years in duration. 

‘‘(2) AMOUNT.—An institution of higher education that receives a grant under 

this section shall be eligible for up to $1,000,000 for each year of the grant period. 

‘‘(g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section— 

‘‘(1) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2011; 

‘‘(2) $32,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; 

‘‘(3) $36,000,000 for fiscal year 2013; 

‘‘(4) $38,000,000 for fiscal year 2014; and 

‘‘(5) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2015.’’. 

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of contents for the America COMPETES Act is amended by striking the items relating to sections 5004 and 5005 

and inserting the following: 

Sec. 5004. Energy applied science talent expansion program for institutions of higher education. 

(d) DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY EARLY CAREER AWARDS FOR SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, 

AND MATHEMATICS RESEARCHERS.—Section 5006 of the America COMPETES Act 

(42 U.S.C. 16534) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘Director of the Office’’ and all that follows 

through ‘‘shall carry’’ and inserting ‘‘Secretary shall carry’’; 

(2) in subsection (b)(1)— 

(A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ‘‘per year’’ after ‘‘$80,000’’; and 

(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘$125,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$175,000 

per year’’; 

(3) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ‘‘, as determined by the Director’’; 

(4) in subsections (c)(2), (e), (f), and (g), by striking ‘‘Director’’ each place it 

appears and inserting ‘‘Secretary’’; 

(5) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘merit-reviewed’’ and inserting ‘‘merit-based, 

peer reviewed’’; and 

(6) in subsection (h)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘, acting through the Director,’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘$25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2010’’ 

and inserting ‘‘such sums as are necessary’’. 

(e) PROTECTING AMERICA’S COMPETITIVE EDGE (PACE) GRADUATE FELLOWSHIP

PROGRAM.—Section 5009 of the America COMPETES Act (42 U.S.C. 16536) is 

amended— 

(1) in subsection (c)— 

(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘involving written and oral interviews, 

that will result in a wide distribution of awards throughout the United 

States,’’; and 

(B) in paragraph (2)(B)(iv), by striking ‘‘verbal and’’; 

(2) in subsection (d)(1)(B)(i), by inserting ‘‘partial or full’’ before ‘‘graduate tuition’’; and 

(3) by striking subsection (f). 

(f) REPEAL.—Section 3164 of the Department of Energy Science Education Enhancement Act (42 U.S.C. 7381a) is repealed. 

SEC. 304. GREEN ENERGY EDUCATION. 

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This section may be cited as the ‘‘Green Energy Education Act 

of 2010’’. 

(b) DEFINITION.—For the purposes of this section: 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
40 

(1) DIRECTOR.—The term ‘‘Director’’ means the Director of the National 

Science Foundation. 

(2) HIGH PERFORMANCE BUILDING.—The term ‘‘high performance building’’ has 

the meaning given that term in section 914(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

(42 U.S.C. 16194(a)). 

(c) GRADUATE TRAINING IN ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.— 

(1) FUNDING.—In carrying out research, development, demonstration, and 

commercial application activities authorized for the Department of Energy, the 

Secretary may contribute funds to the National Science Foundation for the Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship program to support 

projects that enable graduate education related to such activities. 

(2) CONSULTATION.—The Director shall consult with the Secretary when preparing solicitations and awarding grants for projects described in paragraph (1). 

(d) CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT FOR HIGH PERFORMANCE BUILDING DESIGN.— 

(1) FUNDING.—In carrying out advanced energy technology research, development, demonstration, and commercial application activities authorized for the 

Department of Energy related to high performance buildings, the Secretary may 

contribute funds to curriculum development activities at the National Science 

Foundation for the purpose of improving undergraduate or graduate interdisciplinary engineering and architecture education related to the design and 

construction of high performance buildings, including development of curricula, 

of laboratory activities, of training practicums, or of design projects. A primary 

goal of curriculum development activities supported under this subsection shall 

be to improve the ability of engineers, architects, landscape architects, and 

planners to work together on the incorporation of advanced energy technologies 

during the design and construction of high performance buildings. 

(2) CONSULTATION.—The Director shall consult with the Secretary when preparing solicitations and awarding grants for projects described in paragraph (1). 

(3) PRIORITY.—In awarding grants with respect to which the Secretary has 

contributed funds under this subsection, the Director shall give priority to applications from departments, programs, or centers of a school of engineering that 

are partnered with schools, departments, or programs of design, architecture, 

landscape architecture, and city, regional, or urban planning. 

TITLE IV—NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF 

STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY 

SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE. 

This title may be cited as the ‘‘National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Authorization Act of 2010’’. 

SEC. 402. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

(a) FISCAL YEAR 2011.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 

Commerce $991,100,000 for the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

for fiscal year 2011. 

(2) SPECIFIC ALLOCATIONS.—Of the amount authorized under paragraph (1)— 

(A) $620,000,000 shall be authorized for scientific and technical research 

and services laboratory activities; 

(B) $125,000,000 shall be authorized for the construction and maintenance of facilities; and 

(C) $246,100,000 shall be authorized for industrial technology services activities, of which— 

(i) $95,000,000 shall be authorized for the Technology Innovation 

Program under section 28 of the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278n); 

(ii) $141,100,000 shall be authorized for the Manufacturing Extension 

Partnership program under sections 25 and 26 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 

278k and 278l); and 

(iii) $10,000,000 shall be authorized for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award program under section 17 of the StevensonWydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3711a). 

(b) FISCAL YEAR 2012.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 

Commerce $992,400,000 for the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

for fiscal year 2012. 

(2) SPECIFIC ALLOCATIONS.—Of the amount authorized under paragraph (1)— 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
41 

(A) $657,200,000 shall be authorized for scientific and technical research 

and services laboratory activities; (B) $85,000,000 shall be authorized for the construction and maintenance 

of facilities; and (C) $250,200,000 shall be authorized for industrial technology services activities, of which— 

(i) $89,000,000 shall be authorized for the Technology Innovation 

Program under section 28 of the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278n); (ii) $150,900,000 shall be authorized for the Manufacturing Extension 

Partnership program under sections 25 and 26 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 

278k and 278l); and (iii) $10,300,000 shall be authorized for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award program under section 17 of the StevensonWydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3711a). 

(c) FISCAL YEAR 2013.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce $1,079,809,000 for the National Institute of Standards and Technology for fiscal year 2013. 

(2) SPECIFIC ALLOCATIONS.—Of the amount authorized under paragraph (1)— (A) $696,700,000 shall be authorized for scientific and technical research 

and services laboratory activities; 

(B) $122,000,000 shall be authorized for the construction and maintenance of facilities; and 

(C) $261,109,000 shall be authorized for industrial technology services activities, of which— 

(i) $89,000,000 shall be authorized for the Technology Innovation 

Program under section 28 of the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278n); 

(ii) $161,500,000 shall be authorized for the Manufacturing Extension 

Partnership program under sections 25 and 26 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 

278k and 278l); and 

(iii) $10,609,000 shall be authorized for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award program under section 17 of the StevensonWydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3711a). 

(d) FISCAL YEAR 2014.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 

Commerce $1,126,227,000 for the National Institute of Standards and Technology for fiscal year 2014. 

(2) SPECIFIC ALLOCATIONS.—Of the amount authorized under paragraph (1)— 

(A) $738,500,000 shall be authorized for scientific and technical research 

and services laboratory activities; 

(B) $124,000,000 shall be authorized for the construction and maintenance of facilities; and 

(C) $263,727,000 shall be authorized for industrial technology services activities, of which— 

(i) $80,000,000 shall be authorized for the Technology Innovation 

Program under section 28 of the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278n); 

(ii) $172,800,000 shall be authorized for the Manufacturing Extension 

Partnership program under sections 25 and 26 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 

278k and 278l); and 

(iii) $10,927,000 shall be authorized for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award program under section 17 of the StevensonWydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3711a). 

(e) FISCAL YEAR 2015.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 

Commerce $1,191,955,000 for the National Institute of Standards and Technology for fiscal year 2015. 

(2) SPECIFIC ALLOCATIONS.—Of the amount authorized under paragraph (1)— 

(A) $782,800,000 shall be authorized for scientific and technical research 

and services laboratory activities; 

(B) $133,000,000 shall be authorized for the construction and maintenance of facilities; and 

(C) $276,155,000 shall be authorized for industrial technology services activities, of which— 

(i) $80,000,000 shall be authorized for the Technology Innovation 

Program under section 28 of the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278n); 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
42 

(ii) $184,900,000 shall be authorized for the Manufacturing Extension 

Partnership program under sections 25 and 26 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 

278k and 278l); and (iii) $11,255,000 shall be authorized for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award program under section 17 of the StevensonWydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3711a). 

SEC. 403. UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—Section 4 of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘SEC. 4. UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY. 

‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There shall be in the Department of Commerce an Under 

Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology (in this section referred to as 

the ‘Under Secretary’). 

‘‘(b) APPOINTMENT.—The Under Secretary shall be appointed by the President by 

and with the advice and consent of the Senate. 

‘‘(c) COMPENSATION.—The Under Secretary shall be compensated at the rate in effect for level III of the Executive Schedule under section 5314 of title 5, United 

States Code. 

‘‘(d) DUTIES.—The Under Secretary shall serve as the Director of the Institute and 

shall perform such duties as required of the Director by the Secretary under this 

Act or by law. 

‘‘(e) APPLICABILITY.—The individual serving as the Director of the Institute on the 

date of enactment of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Authorization Act of 2010 shall also serve as the Under Secretary until such time as a successor is appointed under subsection (b).’’. 

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

(1) TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE.— 

(A) LEVEL III.—Section 5314 of title 5, United States Code, is amended 

by inserting before the item ‘‘Associate Attorney General’’ the following: 

‘‘Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology, who also serves 

as Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology.’’. 

(B) LEVEL IV.—Section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, is amended 

by striking ‘‘Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.’’. 

(2) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY ACT.—Section 5 of 

the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 274) is 

amended by striking the first, fifth, and sixth sentences. 

SEC. 404. REORGANIZATION OF NIST LABORATORIES. 

(a) ORGANIZATION.—The Director shall reorganize the scientific and technical research and services laboratory program into the following operational units: 

(1) The Physical Measurement Laboratory, whose mission is to realize and 

disseminate the national standards for length, mass, time and frequency, electricity, temperature, force, and radiation by activities including fundamental research in measurement science, the provision of measurement services and 

standards, and the provision of testing facilities resources for use by the Federal 

Government. 

(2) The Information Technology Laboratory, whose mission is to develop and 

disseminate standards, measurements, and testing capabilities for interoperability, security, usability, and reliability of information technologies, including 

cyber security standards and guidelines for Federal agencies, United States industry, and the public, through fundamental and applied research in computer 

science, mathematics, and statistics. 

(3) The Engineering Laboratory, whose mission is to develop and disseminate 

advanced manufacturing and construction technologies to the United States 

manufacturing and construction industries through activities including measurement science research, performance metrics, tools for engineering applications, and promotion of standards adoption. 

(4) The Material Measurement Laboratory, whose mission is to serve as the 

national reference laboratory in biological, chemical, and material sciences and 

engineering through activities including fundamental research in the composition, structure, and properties of biological and environmental materials and 

processes, the development of certified reference materials and critically evaluated data, and other programs to assure measurement quality in materials and 

biotechnology fields. 

(5) The Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology, a national shared-use 

facility for nanoscale fabrication and measurement, whose mission is to develop 

innovative nanoscale measurement and fabrication capabilities to support reVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
43 

searchers from industry, institutions of higher education, the National Institute 

of Standards and Technology, and other Federal agencies in nanoscale technology from discovery to production. 

(6) The NIST Center for Neutron Research, a national user facility, whose 

mission is to provide neutron-based measurement capabilities to researchers 

from industry, institutions of higher education, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and other Federal agencies in support of materials research, nondestructive evaluation, neutron imaging, chemical analysis, neutron 

standards, dosimetry, and radiation metrology. 

(b) ADDITIONAL DUTIES.—The Director may assign additional duties to the operational units listed in subsection (a) that are consistent with the missions of such 

units. 

(c) REVISION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Subsequent to the reorganization required under subsection 

(a), the Director may revise the organization of the scientific and technical research and services laboratory program. 

(2) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Any revision to the organization of such program 

under paragraph (1) shall be submitted in a report to the Committee on Science 

and Technology of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate at least 60 days before the effective date of such revision. 

SEC. 405. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT STANDARDS AND CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT COORDINATION. 

(a) COORDINATION.—Section 2(b) of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 272(b)) is amended— 

(1) in paragraph (12), by striking ‘‘and’’ after the semicolon; 

(2) in paragraph (13), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and 

(3) by adding after paragraph (13) the following: 

‘‘(14) to promote collaboration among Federal departments and agencies and 

private sector stakeholders in the development and implementation of standards and conformity assessment frameworks to address specific Federal Government policy goals; and 

‘‘(15) to convene Federal departments and agencies, as appropriate, to— 

‘‘(A) coordinate and determine Federal Government positions on specific 

policy issues related to the development of international technical standards and conformity assessment-related activities; and 

‘‘(B) coordinate Federal department and agency engagement in the development of international technical standards and conformity assessment-related activities.’’. 

(b) REPORT.—The Director, in consultation with appropriate Federal agencies, 

shall submit a report annually to Congress addressing the Federal Government’s 

technical standards and conformity assessment-related activities. The report shall 

identify— 

(1) current and anticipated international standards and conformity assessment-related issues that have the potential to impact the competitiveness and 

innovation capabilities of the United States; 

(2) any action being taken by the Federal Government to address these issues 

and the Federal agency taking that action; and 

(3) any action that the Director is taking or will take to ensure effective Federal Government engagement on technical standards and conformity assessment-related issues, as appropriate, where the Federal Government is not effectively engaged. 

SEC. 406. MANUFACTURING EXTENSION PARTNERSHIP. 

(a) COMMUNITY COLLEGE SUPPORT.—Section 25(a) of the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(a)) is amended— 

(1) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘and’’ after the semicolon; 

(2) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; 

and 

(3) by adding after paragraph (5) the following: 

‘‘(6) providing to community colleges information about the job skills needed 

in small- and medium-sized manufacturing businesses in the regions they 

serve.’’. 

(b) INNOVATIVE SERVICES INITIATIVE.—Section 25 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 278k) is 

amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(g) INNOVATIVE SERVICES INITIATIVE.— 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
44 

‘‘(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Director may establish, within the Centers program under this section, an innovative services initiative to assist small- and 

medium-sized manufacturers in— 

‘‘(A) reducing their energy usage and environmental waste to improve 

profitability; and 

‘‘(B) accelerating the domestic commercialization of new product technologies, including components for renewable energy systems. 

‘‘(2) MARKET DEMAND.—The Director may not undertake any activity to accelerate the domestic commercialization of a new product technology under this 

subsection unless an analysis of market demand for the new product technology 

has been conducted.’’. 

(c) REPORTS.—Section 25 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 278k) is further amended by adding after subsection (g), as added by subsection (b), the following: 

‘‘(h) REPORTS.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In submitting the 3-year programmatic planning document 

and annual updates under section 23, the Director shall include an assessment 

of the Director’s governance of the program established under this section. 

‘‘(2) CRITERIA.—In conducting such assessment, the Director shall use the criteria established pursuant to the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award 

under section 17(d)(1)(C) of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 

1980 (15 U.S.C. 3711a(d)(1)(C)).’’. 

(d) HOLLINGS MANUFACTURING EXTENSION PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM COST-SHARING.—Section 25(c) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(c)) is amended by adding at the end 

the following: 

‘‘(7) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1), (3), and (5), for fiscal year 2011 through 

fiscal year 2015, the Secretary may not provide to a Center more than 50 percent of the costs incurred by such Center and may not require that a Center’s 

cost share exceed 50 percent. 

‘‘(8) Not later than 4 years after the date of enactment of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Authorization Act of 2010, the Secretary shall 

submit to Congress a report on the cost share requirements under the program. 

The report shall— 

‘‘(A) discuss various cost share structures, including the cost share structure in place prior to such date of enactment and the cost share structure 

in place under paragraph (7), and the effect of such cost share structures 

on individual Centers and the overall program; and 

‘‘(B) include a recommendation for how best to structure the cost share 

requirement after fiscal year 2015 to provide for the long-term sustainability of the program.’’. 

(e) ADVISORY BOARD.—Section 25(e)(4) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(e)(4)) is 

amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(4) FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT APPLICABILITY.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In discharging its duties under this subsection, the 

MEP Advisory Board shall function solely in an advisory capacity, in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 

‘‘(B) EXCEPTION.—Section 14 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act shall 

not apply to the MEP Advisory Board.’’. 

(f) DEFINITIONS.—Section 25 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 278k) is further amended by 

adding after subsection (h), as added by subsection (c), the following: 

‘‘(i) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘community college’ means an institution of higher education (as defined under section 101(a) of the Higher Education 

Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a))) at which the highest degree that is predominately 

awarded to students is an associate’s degree.’’. 

SEC. 407. BIOSCIENCE RESEARCH PROGRAM. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 

U.S.C. 271 et seq.) is amended— 

(1) by redesignating section 34 as section 35; and 

(2) by inserting after section 33 the following: 

‘‘SEC. 34. BIOSCIENCE RESEARCH PROGRAM. 

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Director shall establish a bioscience research program to 

support research and development of standard reference materials, measurements, 

methods, and genomic and other data to advance— 

‘‘(1) biological drug research and development; 

‘‘(2) molecular diagnostics; 

‘‘(3) medical imaging technologies; and 

‘‘(4) personalized medicine. 

‘‘(b) UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CENTERS.— 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
45 

‘‘(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Director may establish research centers at institutions of higher education (in this section referred to as ‘university research centers’) through a competitive application process to conduct research that furthers the objectives of the bioscience research program. 

‘‘(2) APPLICATION.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—An institution of higher education seeking to establish 

a university research center under this subsection shall submit an application to the Director at such time, in such manner, and containing such information and assurances as the Director may require. 

‘‘(B) COMPONENTS.—The application shall include, at a minimum, a description of— 

‘‘(i) the relevant research and instructional capacity of the applicant; 

‘‘(ii) the research projects that will be undertaken by the applicant; 

‘‘(iii) the extent to which the applicant will partner with industry and 

the role industry will play in the research undertaken by the university 

research center; 

‘‘(iv) how the applicant will disseminate research results effectively; 

and 

‘‘(v) the metrics that will be used to evaluate the success of the 

projects under clause (ii) and the contribution of the university research center in furthering the objectives of the bioscience research program. 

‘‘(C) SPECIAL CONSIDERATION.—The Director shall give special consideration to an application from an institution of higher education that is— 

‘‘(i) an 1890 Institution, as defined in section 2 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7061); 

‘‘(ii) a Predominantly Black Institution, as defined in section 318 of 

the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1059e); 

‘‘(iii) a part B institution, as defined in section 322 of the Higher 

Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1061); 

‘‘(iv) a Tribal College or University, as defined in section 316 of the 

Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1059c); 

‘‘(v) a Native American-serving, nontribal institution, as defined in 

section 319 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1059f); 

‘‘(vi) an Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving institution, as defined in section 320 of the Higher Education Act 

of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1059g); 

‘‘(vii) an Alaska Native-serving institution, as defined in section 317 

of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1059d); 

‘‘(viii) a Native Hawaiian-serving institution, as defined in section 

317 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1059d); or 

‘‘(ix) a Hispanic-serving institution, as defined in section 502 of the 

Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1101a). 

‘‘(3) ASSESSMENT.—Not later than 3 years after the date on which a university 

research center is established and every 3 years thereafter, the Director shall 

evaluate the university research center for its contributions to the bioscience research program. 

‘‘(4) ANNUAL MEETING.—If the Director establishes more than 1 university research center, the Director shall convene an annual meeting of researchers from 

all of the university research centers and the Institute to foster collaboration 

and communication. 

‘‘(c) USER FACILITY.—The Director may establish a bioscience user facility to provide access to advanced or unique equipment, services, materials, and other resources to industry, institutions of higher education, nonprofit organizations, and 

government agencies to perform research and testing. 

‘‘(d) POSTDOCTORAL FELLOWS.—The Director shall, to the extent practicable, assign 1 or more fellows from the postdoctoral fellowship program established in section 19 to the bioscience research program. 

‘‘(e) PROGRAMMATIC PLANNING DOCUMENT.—The Director shall ensure that the 

updates to the programmatic planning document transmitted to Congress under section 23(d) include the bioscience research program. 

‘‘(f) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

‘‘(1) BIOSCIENCE RESEARCH PROGRAM.—The term ‘bioscience research program’ 

means the research and development program authorized under subsection (a). 

‘‘(2) INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION.—The term ‘institution of higher education’ has the same meaning given the term in section 101(a) of the Higher 

Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)).’’. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
46 

(b) VISITING COMMITTEE ON ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AMENDMENTS.—Section 10 of 

the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (a)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘15 members’’ and inserting ‘‘at least 15, but not more 

than 20, members’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘at least 10’’ and inserting ‘‘at least 13’’; and 

(2) in subsection (h)(1), by striking ‘‘Program established under section 28’’ 

and inserting ‘‘programs established under sections 28 and 34’’. 

SEC. 408. EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION AND TRACKING TECHNOLOGIES RESEARCH INITIATIVE. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Director shall establish a research initiative to support 

the development of emergency communication and tracking technologies for use in 

locating trapped individuals in confined spaces, such as underground mines, and 

other shielded environments, such as high-rise buildings or collapsed structures, 

where conventional radio communication is limited. 

(b) ACTIVITIES.—In order to carry out this section, the Director shall work with 

the private sector and appropriate Federal agencies to— 

(1) perform a needs assessment to identify and evaluate the measurement, 

technical standards, and conformity assessment needs required to improve the 

operation and reliability of such emergency communication and tracking technologies; and 

(2) support the development of technical standards and conformance architecture to improve the operation and reliability of such emergency communication 

and tracking technologies. 

(c) REPORT.—Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, 

the Director shall submit to Congress and make publicly available a report describing the assessment performed under subsection (b)(1) and making recommendations 

about research priorities to address gaps in the measurement, technical standards, 

and conformity assessment needs identified by such assessment. 

SEC. 409. TIP ADVISORY BOARD. 

Section 28(k)(4) of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 

U.S.C. 278n(k)(4)) is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(4) FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT APPLICABILITY.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In discharging its duties under this subsection, the 

TIP Advisory Board shall function solely in an advisory capacity, in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 

‘‘(B) EXCEPTION.—Section 14 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act shall 

not apply to the TIP Advisory Board.’’. 

SEC. 410. UNDERREPRESENTED MINORITIES. 

(a) RESEARCH FELLOWSHIPS.—Section 18 of the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-1) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(c) UNDERREPRESENTED MINORITIES.—In evaluating applications for fellowships 

under this section, the Director shall give consideration to the goal of promoting the 

participation of underrepresented minorities in research areas supported by the Institute.’’. 

(b) POSTDOCTORAL FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM.—Section 19 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 

278g-2) is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘In evaluating applications 

for fellowships under this section, the Director shall give consideration to the goal 

of promoting the participation of underrepresented minorities in research areas supported by the Institute.’’. 

(c) TEACHER DEVELOPMENT.—Section 19A(c) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-2a(c)) is 

amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘The Director shall give special consideration to an application from a teacher from a high-need school, as defined in section 200 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1021).’’. 

SEC. 411. CYBER SECURITY STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES. 

Cyber security standards and guidelines developed by the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology for use by United States industry and the public shall 

be voluntary. 

SEC. 412. DEFINITIONS. 

In this title: 

(1) DIRECTOR.—The term ‘‘Director’’ means the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
47 

(2) FEDERAL AGENCY.—The term ‘‘Federal agency’’ has the meaning given 

such term in section 4 of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 

1980 (15 U.S.C. 3703). 

TITLE V—INNOVATION 

SEC. 501. OFFICE OF INNOVATION AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP. 

The Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.) 

is amended by adding at the end the following new section: 

‘‘SEC. 24. OFFICE OF INNOVATION AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP. 

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish an Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship to foster innovation and the commercialization of new technologies, 

products, processes, and services with the goal of promoting productivity and economic growth in the United States. 

‘‘(b) DUTIES.—The Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship shall be responsible 

for— 

‘‘(1) developing and advocating policies to accelerate innovation and advance 

the commercialization of research and development, including federally funded 

research and development; 

‘‘(2) identifying existing barriers to innovation and commercialization, including access to capital and other resources, and ways to overcome those barriers; 

‘‘(3) providing access to relevant data, research, and technical assistance on 

innovation and commercialization; 

‘‘(4) strengthening collaboration on and coordination of policies relating to innovation and commercialization within the Department of Commerce and between the Department of Commerce and other Federal agencies, as appropriate; 

and 

‘‘(5) any other duties as determined by the Secretary. 

‘‘(c) ADVISORY COMMITTEE.—The Secretary shall establish an Advisory Council on 

Innovation and Entrepreneurship to provide advice to the Secretary on carrying out 

subsection (b).’’. 

SEC. 502. FEDERAL LOAN GUARANTEES FOR INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES IN MANUFACTURING. 

The Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.) 

is further amended by adding after section 24, as added by section 501 of this title, 

the following new section: 

‘‘SEC. 25. FEDERAL LOAN GUARANTEES FOR INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES IN MANUFACTURING. 

‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary shall establish a program to provide loan 

guarantees for obligations to small- or medium-sized manufacturers for the use or 

production of innovative technologies. 

‘‘(b) ELIGIBLE PROJECTS.—A loan guarantee may be made under such program 

only for a project that reequips, expands, or establishes a manufacturing facility in 

the United States to— 

‘‘(1) use an innovative technology or an innovative process in manufacturing; 

or 

‘‘(2) manufacture an innovative technology product or an integral component 

of such product. 

‘‘(c) ELIGIBLE BORROWER.—A loan guarantee may be made under such program 

only for a borrower who is a small- or medium-sized manufacturer, as determined 

by the Secretary under the criteria established pursuant to subsection (m). 

‘‘(d) LIMITATION ON AMOUNT.—A loan guarantee shall not exceed an amount equal 

to 80 percent of the obligation, as estimated at the time at which the loan guarantee 

is issued. 

‘‘(e) LIMITATIONS ON LOAN GUARANTEE.—No loan guarantee shall be made unless 

the Secretary determines that— 

‘‘(1) there is a reasonable prospect of repayment of the principal and interest 

on the obligation by the borrower; 

‘‘(2) the amount of the obligation (when combined with amounts available to 

the borrower from other sources) is sufficient to carry out the project; 

‘‘(3) the obligation is not subordinate to other financing; 

‘‘(4) the obligation bears interest at a rate that does not exceed a level that 

the Secretary determines appropriate, taking into account the prevailing rate of 

interest in the private sector for similar loans and risks; and 

‘‘(5) the term of an obligation requires full repayment over a period not to exceed the lesser of— 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
48 

‘‘(A) 30 years; or 

‘‘(B) 90 percent of the projected useful life, as determined by the Secretary, of the physical asset to be financed by the obligation. 

‘‘(f) DEFAULTS.— ‘‘(1) PAYMENT BY SECRETARY.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—If a borrower defaults (as defined in regulations promulgated by the Secretary and specified in the loan guarantee) on the obligation, the holder of the loan guarantee shall have the right to demand 

payment of the unpaid amount from the Secretary. 

‘‘(B) PAYMENT REQUIRED.—Within such period as may be specified in the 

loan guarantee or related agreements, the Secretary shall pay to the holder 

of the loan guarantee the unpaid interest on and unpaid principal of the 

obligation as to which the borrower has defaulted, unless the Secretary 

finds that there was no default by the borrower in the payment of interest 

or principal or that the default has been remedied. 

‘‘(C) FORBEARANCE.—Nothing in this subsection precludes any forbearance by the holder of the obligation for the benefit of the borrower which 

may be agreed upon by the parties to the obligation and approved by the 

Secretary. 

‘‘(2) SUBROGATION.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—If the Secretary makes a payment under paragraph 

(1), the Secretary shall be subrogated to the rights, as specified in the loan 

guarantee, of the recipient of the payment or related agreements including, 

if appropriate, the authority (notwithstanding any other provision of law) 

to— 

‘‘(i) complete, maintain, operate, lease, or otherwise dispose of any 

property acquired pursuant to such loan guarantee or related agreement; or 

‘‘(ii) permit the borrower, pursuant to an agreement with the Secretary, to continue to pursue the purposes of the project if the Secretary determines that such an agreement is in the public interest. 

‘‘(B) SUPERIORITY OF RIGHTS.—The rights of the Secretary, with respect 

to any property acquired pursuant to a loan guarantee or related agreements, shall be superior to the rights of any other person with respect to 

the property. 

‘‘(3) ACTION BY ATTORNEY GENERAL.— 

‘‘(A) NOTIFICATION.—If the borrower defaults on an obligation, the Secretary shall notify the Attorney General of the default. 

‘‘(B) RECOVERY.—On notification, the Attorney General shall take such 

action as is appropriate to recover the unpaid principal and interest. 

‘‘(g) PAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST BY SECRETARY.—With respect to any 

obligation guaranteed under this section, the Secretary may enter into a contract 

to pay, and pay, holders of the obligation for and on behalf of the borrower from 

funds appropriated for that purpose the principal and interest payments that become due and payable on the unpaid balance of the obligation if the Secretary finds 

that— 

‘‘(1)(A) the borrower is unable to make the payments and is not in default; 

‘‘(B) it is in the public interest to permit the borrower to continue to pursue 

the project; and 

‘‘(C) the probable net benefit to the Federal Government in paying the principal and interest will be greater than that which would result in the event of 

a default; 

‘‘(2) the amount of the payment that the Secretary is authorized to pay shall 

be no greater than the amount of principal and interest that the borrower is 

obligated to pay under the obligation being guaranteed; and 

‘‘(3) the borrower agrees to reimburse the Secretary for the payment (including interest) on terms and conditions that are satisfactory to the Secretary. 

‘‘(h) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—A loan guarantee under this section shall include 

such detailed terms and conditions as the Secretary determines appropriate to— 

‘‘(1) protect the interests of the United States in the case of default; and 

‘‘(2) have available all the patents and technology necessary for any person 

selected, including the Secretary, to complete and operate the project. 

‘‘(i) CONSULTATION.—In establishing the terms and conditions of a loan guarantee 

under this section, the Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of the Treasury. 

‘‘(j) FEES.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall charge and collect fees for loan guarantees in amounts the Secretary determines are sufficient to cover applicable administrative expenses. 

‘‘(2) AVAILABILITY.—Fees collected under this subsection shall— 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
49 

‘‘(A) be deposited by the Secretary into the Treasury of the United States; 

and 

‘‘(B) remain available until expended, subject to such other conditions as 

are contained in annual appropriations Acts. 

‘‘(k) RECORDS.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—With respect to a loan guarantee under this section, the 

borrower, the lender, and any other appropriate party shall keep such records 

and other pertinent documents as the Secretary shall prescribe by regulation, 

including such records as the Secretary may require to facilitate an effective 

audit. 

‘‘(2) ACCESS.—The Secretary and the Comptroller General of the United 

States, or their duly authorized representatives, shall have access to records 

and other pertinent documents for the purpose of conducting an audit. 

‘‘(l) FULL FAITH AND CREDIT.—The full faith and credit of the United States is 

pledged to the payment of all loan guarantees issued under this section with respect 

to principal and interest. 

‘‘(m) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary shall issue final regulations before making 

any loan guarantees under the program. Such regulations shall include— 

‘‘(1) criteria that the Secretary shall use to determine eligibility for loan guarantees under this section, including— 

‘‘(A) whether a borrower is a small- or medium-sized manufacturer; and 

‘‘(B) whether a borrower demonstrates that a market exists for the innovative technology product, or the integral component of such product, to be 

manufactured, as evidenced by written statements of interest from potential purchasers; 

‘‘(2) policies and procedures for selecting and monitoring lenders and loan performance; and 

‘‘(3) any other policies, procedures, or information necessary to implement this 

section. 

‘‘(n) AUDIT.— 

‘‘(1) ANNUAL INDEPENDENT AUDITS.—The Secretary shall enter into an arrangement with an independent auditor for annual evaluations of the program 

under this section. 

‘‘(2) ANNUAL REVIEW.—The Comptroller General shall conduct an annual review of the Secretary’s execution of the program under this section. 

‘‘(3) REPORT.—The results of the independent audit under paragraph (1) and 

the Comptroller General’s review under paragraph (2) shall be provided directly 

to the Committee on Science and Technology of the House of Representatives 

and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate. 

‘‘(o) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Concurrent with the submission to Congress of the 

President’s annual budget request in each year after the date of enactment of this 

section, the Secretary shall transmit to the Committee on Science and Technology 

of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation of the Senate a report containing a summary of all activities carried 

out under this section. 

‘‘(p) COORDINATION AND NONDUPLICATION.—To the maximum extent practicable, 

the Secretary shall ensure that the activities carried out under this section are coordinated with, and do not duplicate the efforts of, other loan guarantee programs 

within the Federal Government. 

‘‘(q) MEP CENTERS.—The Secretary may use centers established under section 25 

of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k) to provide information about the program established under this section and to conduct 

outreach to potential borrowers, as appropriate. 

‘‘(r) MINIMIZING RISK.—The Secretary shall promulgate regulations and policies to 

carry out this section in accordance with Office of Management and Budget Circular 

No. A-129, entitled ‘Policies for Federal Credit Programs and Non-Tax Receivables’, 

as in effect on the date of enactment of this section. 

‘‘(s) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that no loan guarantee shall 

be made under this section unless the borrower agrees to use a federally-approved 

electronic employment eligibility verification system to verify the employment eligibility of— 

‘‘(1) all persons hired during the contract term by the borrower to perform employment duties within the United States; and 

‘‘(2) all persons assigned by the borrower to perform work within the United 

States on the project. 

‘‘(t) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

‘‘(1) COST.—The term ‘cost’ has the meaning given such term under section 

502 of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 661a). 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
50 

‘‘(2) INNOVATIVE PROCESS.—The term ‘innovative process’ means a process 

that is significantly improved as compared to the process in general use in the 

commercial marketplace in the United States at the time the loan guarantee 

is issued. 

‘‘(3) INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY.—The term ‘innovative technology’ means a 

technology that is significantly improved as compared to the technology in general use in the commercial marketplace in the United States at the time the 

loan guarantee is issued. 

‘‘(4) LOAN GUARANTEE.—The term ‘loan guarantee’ has the meaning given 

such term in section 502 of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 

661a). The term includes a loan guarantee commitment (as defined in section 

502 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 661a)). 

‘‘(5) OBLIGATION.—The term ‘obligation’ means the loan or other debt obligation that is guaranteed under this section. 

‘‘(6) PROGRAM.—The term ‘program’ means the loan guarantee program established in subsection (a). 

‘‘(u) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— 

‘‘(1) COST OF LOAN GUARANTEES.—There are authorized to be appropriated 

$50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2011 through 2015 to provide the cost of 

loan guarantees under this section. 

‘‘(2) PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST.—There are authorized to be appropriated such 

sums as are necessary to carry out subsection (g).’’. 

SEC. 503. REGIONAL INNOVATION PROGRAM. 

The Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.) 

is further amended by adding after section 25, as added by section 502 of this title, 

the following new section: 

‘‘SEC. 26. REGIONAL INNOVATION PROGRAM. 

‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary shall establish a regional innovation program to encourage and support the development of regional innovation strategies, 

including regional innovation clusters. 

‘‘(b) REGIONAL INNOVATION CLUSTER GRANTS.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—As part of the program established under subsection (a), 

the Secretary may award grants on a competitive basis to eligible recipients for 

activities relating to the formation and development of regional innovation clusters. 

‘‘(2) PERMISSIBLE ACTIVITIES.—Grants awarded under this subsection may be 

used for activities determined appropriate by the Secretary, including the following: 

‘‘(A) Feasibility studies. 

‘‘(B) Planning activities. 

‘‘(C) Technical assistance. 

‘‘(D) Developing or strengthening communication and collaboration between and among participants of a regional innovation cluster. 

‘‘(E) Attracting additional participants to a regional innovation cluster. 

‘‘(F) Facilitating market development of products and services developed 

by a regional innovation cluster, including through demonstration, deployment, technology transfer, and commercialization activities. 

‘‘(G) Developing relationships between a regional innovation cluster and 

entities or clusters in other regions. 

‘‘(3) ELIGIBLE RECIPIENT.—For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘eligible 

recipient’ means any of the following: 

‘‘(A) A State. 

‘‘(B) An Indian tribe. 

‘‘(C) A city or other political subdivision of a State. 

‘‘(D) An entity that— 

‘‘(i) is a nonprofit organization, an institution of higher education, a 

public-private partnership, or an economic development organization or 

similar entity; and 

‘‘(ii) has an application that is supported by a State or a political subdivision of a State. 

‘‘(E) A consortium of any of the entities listed in subparagraphs (A) 

through (D). 

‘‘(4) APPLICATION.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—An eligible recipient shall submit an application to the 

Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such information 

and assurances as the Secretary may require. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
51 

‘‘(B) COMPONENTS.—The application shall include, at a minimum, a description of the regional innovation cluster supported by the proposed activity, including a description of the following: 

‘‘(i) Whether the regional innovation cluster is supported by the private sector, State and local governments, and other relevant stakeholders. 

‘‘(ii) How the existing participants in the regional innovation cluster 

will encourage and solicit participation by all types of entities that 

might benefit from participation, including newly formed entities and 

those rival to existing participants. 

‘‘(iii) The extent to which the regional innovation cluster is likely to 

stimulate innovation and have a positive impact on regional economic 

growth and development. 

‘‘(iv) Whether the participants in the regional innovation cluster have 

access to, or contribute to, a well-trained workforce. 

‘‘(v) Whether the participants in the regional innovation cluster are 

capable of attracting additional funds from non-Federal sources. 

‘‘(vi) The likelihood that the participants in the regional innovation 

cluster will be able to sustain activities once grant funds under this 

subsection have been expended. 

‘‘(5) COST SHARE.—The Secretary may not provide more than 50 percent of the 

total cost of any activity funded under this subsection. 

‘‘(6) USE AND APPLICATION OF RESEARCH AND INFORMATION PROGRAM.—To the 

maximum extent practicable, the Secretary shall ensure that activities funded 

under this subsection use and apply any relevant research, best practices, and 

metrics developed under the program established in subsection (c). 

‘‘(c) REGIONAL INNOVATION RESEARCH AND INFORMATION PROGRAM.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—As part of the program established under subsection (a), 

the Secretary shall establish a regional innovation research and information 

program to— 

‘‘(A) gather, analyze, and disseminate information on best practices for regional innovation strategies (including regional innovation clusters), including information relating to how innovation, productivity, and economic development can be maximized through such strategies; 

‘‘(B) provide technical assistance, including through the development of 

technical assistance guides, for the development and implementation of regional innovation strategies (including regional innovation clusters); 

‘‘(C) support the development of relevant metrics and measurement 

standards to evaluate regional innovation strategies (including regional innovation clusters), including the extent to which such strategies stimulate 

innovation, productivity, and economic development; and 

‘‘(D) collect and make available data on regional innovation cluster activity in the United States, including data on— 

‘‘(i) the size, specialization, and competitiveness of regional innovation clusters; 

‘‘(ii) the regional domestic product contribution, total jobs and earnings by key occupations, establishment size, nature of specialization, 

patents, Federal research and development spending, and other relevant information for regional innovation clusters; and 

‘‘(iii) supply chain product and service flows within and between regional innovation clusters. 

‘‘(2) RESEARCH GRANTS.—The Secretary may award research grants on a competitive basis to support and further the goals of the program established under 

this subsection. 

‘‘(3) DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION.—Data and analysis compiled by the 

Secretary under the program established in this subsection shall be made available to other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and nonprofit and 

for-profit entities. 

‘‘(4) CLUSTER GRANT PROGRAM.—The Secretary shall incorporate data and 

analysis relating to any regional innovation cluster supported by a grant under 

subsection (b) into the program established under this subsection. 

‘‘(d) INTERAGENCY COORDINATION.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—To the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary shall ensure that the activities carried out under this section are coordinated with, and 

do not duplicate the efforts of, other programs at the Department of Commerce 

or other Federal agencies. 

‘‘(2) COLLABORATION.—The Secretary shall explore and pursue collaboration 

with other Federal agencies, including through multiagency funding opportunities, on regional innovation strategies. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
52 

‘‘(e) EVALUATION.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 4 years after the date of enactment of this 

section, the Secretary shall enter into a contract with an independent entity, 

such as the National Academy of Sciences, to conduct an evaluation of the program established under subsection (a). 

‘‘(2) REQUIREMENTS.—The evaluation shall include— 

‘‘(A) whether such program is achieving its goals; 

‘‘(B) any recommendations for how such program may be improved; and 

‘‘(C) a recommendation as to whether such program should be continued 

or terminated. 

‘‘(f) REGIONAL INNOVATION CLUSTER DEFINED.—The term ‘regional innovation 

cluster’ means a geographically bounded network of similar, synergistic, or complementary entities that— 

‘‘(1) are engaged in or with a particular industry sector; 

‘‘(2) have active channels for business transactions and communication; 

‘‘(3) share specialized infrastructure, labor markets, and services; and 

‘‘(4) leverage the region’s unique competitive strengths to stimulate innovation and create jobs. 

‘‘(g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 2011 through 2015 to 

carry out this section, including such sums as are necessary to carry out the evaluation required under subsection (e).’’. 

TITLE VI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Subtitle A—Office of Science 

SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE. 

This subtitle may be cited as the ‘‘Department of Energy Office of Science Authorization Act of 2010’’. 

SEC. 602. DEFINITIONS. 

Except as otherwise provided, in this subtitle: 

(1) DEPARTMENT.—The term ‘‘Department’’ means the Department of Energy. 

(2) DIRECTOR.—The term ‘‘Director’’ means the Director of the Office of 

Science. 

(3) OFFICE OF SCIENCE.—The term ‘‘Office of Science’’ means the Department 

of Energy Office of Science. 

(4) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of Energy. 

SEC. 603. MISSION OF THE OFFICE OF SCIENCE. 

(a) MISSION.—The mission of the Office of Science shall be the delivery of scientific discoveries, capabilities, and major scientific tools to transform the understanding of nature and to advance the energy, economic, and national security of 

the United States. 

(b) DUTIES.—In support of this mission, the Secretary shall carry out, through the 

Office of Science, programs on basic energy sciences, biological and environmental 

research, advanced scientific computing research, fusion energy sciences, high energy physics, and nuclear physics through activities focused on— 

(1) Science for Discovery to unravel nature’s mysteries through the study of 

subatomic particles, atoms, and molecules that make up the materials of our 

everyday world to DNA, proteins, cells, and entire biological systems; 

(2) Science for National Need by— 

(A) advancing a clean energy agenda through research on energy production, storage, transmission, efficiency, and use; and 

(B) advancing our understanding of the Earth’s climate through research 

in atmospheric and environmental sciences and climate change; and 

(3) National Scientific User Facilities to deliver the 21st century tools of 

science, engineering, and technology and provide the Nation’s researchers with 

the most advanced tools of modern science including accelerators, colliders, 

supercomputers, light sources and neutron sources, and facilities for studying 

the nanoworld. 

(c) SUPPORTING ACTIVITIES.—The activities described in subsection (b) shall include providing for relevant facilities and infrastructure, analysis, coordination, and 

education and outreach activities. 

(d) USER FACILITIES.—The Director shall carry out the construction, operation, 

and maintenance of user facilities to support the activities described in subsection 

(b). As practicable, these facilities shall serve the needs of the Department, industry, 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
53 

the academic community, and other relevant entities for the purposes of advancing 

the missions of the Department. 

(e) OTHER AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES.—In addition to the activities authorized under 

this subtitle, the Office of Science shall carry out such other activities it is authorized or required to carry out by law. 

(f) COORDINATION AND JOINT ACTIVITIES.—The Department’s Under Secretary for 

Science shall ensure the coordination of activities under this subtitle with the other 

activities of the Department, and shall support joint activities among the programs 

of the Department. 

(g) DOMESTICALLY SOURCED HARDWARE.— 

(1) PLAN.—The Director shall develop a plan to increase the percentage of domestically sourced hardware for planned and ongoing projects of the Department of Energy. In developing this plan, the Director shall— 

(A) give consideration to technologies that the United States does not currently have the capacity to manufacture and to procurement activities that 

can strengthen United States high-technology competitiveness broadly; 

(B) seek opportunities to engage and partner with domestic manufacturers; and 

(C) annually assess levels of domestically available goods relevant to 

planned and ongoing projects of the Office of Science. 

(2) INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS.—This subsection shall be applied in a manner consistent with United States obligations under international agreements. 

(3) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 

of this Act, the Director shall transmit the plan developed under this subsection 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee on Science and Technology of the House of Representatives, and shall 

transmit any appropriate updates to those committees. 

(h) MERIT-REVIEWED STUDY.—As part of the President’s annual budget request, 

the Secretary shall include a detailed summary of the degree to which current research activities are competitive and merit-reviewed, including a list of activities 

that would have been undertaken in the absence of Congressionally-directed projects 

and an analysis of the effects of increasing the proportion of competitive, merit-reviewed activities on the strategic objectives of the Office of Science. 

SEC. 604. BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES PROGRAM. 

(a) PROGRAM.—As part of the activities authorized under section 603, the Director 

shall carry out a program in basic energy sciences, including materials sciences and 

engineering, chemical sciences, physical biosciences, and geosciences, for the purpose of providing the scientific foundations for new energy technologies. 

(b) BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES USER FACILITIES.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Director shall carry out a program for the construction, 

operation, and maintenance of national user facilities to support the program 

under this section. As practicable, these facilities shall serve the needs of the 

Department, industry, the academic community, and other relevant entities to 

create and examine new materials and chemical processes for the purposes of 

advancing new energy technologies and improving the competitiveness of the 

United States. These facilities shall include— 

(A) x-ray light sources; 

(B) neutron sources; 

(C) electron beam microcharacterization centers; 

(D) nanoscale science research centers; and 

(E) other facilities the Director considers appropriate, consistent with section 603(d). 

(2) FACILITY CONSTRUCTION AND UPGRADES.—Consistent with the Office of 

Science’s project management practices, the Director shall support construction 

of— 

(A) the National Synchrotron Light Source II; 

(B) a Second Target Station at the Spallation Neutron Source; and 

(C) an upgrade of the Advanced Photon Source to improve brightness and 

performance. 

(c) ENERGY FRONTIER RESEARCH CENTERS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Director shall carry out a grant program to provide 

awards, on a competitive, merit-reviewed basis, to multi-institutional collaborations or other appropriate entities to conduct fundamental and use-inspired energy research to accelerate scientific breakthroughs related to needs identified 

in— 

(A) the Grand Challenges report of the Department’s Basic Energy 

Sciences Advisory Committee; 

(B) the Basic Energy Sciences Basic Research Needs workshop reports; 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
54 

(C) energy-related Grand Challenges for Engineering, as described by the 

National Academy of Engineering; or 

(D) other relevant reports identified by the Director. 

(2) COLLABORATIONS.—A collaboration receiving a grant under this subsection 

may include multiple types of institutions and private sector entities. 

(3) SELECTION AND DURATION.— (A) IN GENERAL.—A collaboration under this subsection shall be selected 

for a period of 5 years. 

(B) REAPPLICATION.—After the end of the period described in subparagraph (A), a grantee may reapply for selection for a second period of 5 years 

on a competitive, merit-reviewed basis. 

(4) NO FUNDING FOR CONSTRUCTION.—No funding provided pursuant to this 

subsection may be used for the construction of new buildings or facilities. 

(d) ACCELERATOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.—The Director shall carry out research and development on advanced accelerator technologies relevant to the development of Basic Energy Sciences user facilities, in consultation with the Office of 

Science’s High Energy Physics and Nuclear Physics programs. 

SEC. 605. BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH PROGRAM. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—As part of the activities authorized under section 603, and coordinated with the activities authorized in section 604, the Director shall carry out 

a program of research, development, and demonstration in the areas of biological 

systems science and climate and environmental science to support the energy and 

environmental missions of the Department. 

(b) BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS SCIENCE ACTIVITIES.— 

(1) ACTIVITIES.—As part of the activities authorized under subsection (a), the 

Director shall carry out research, development, and demonstration activities in 

fundamental, structural, computational, and systems biology to increase systems-level understanding of complex biological systems, which shall include activities to— 

(A) accelerate breakthroughs and new knowledge that will enable cost-effective sustainable production of— 

(i) biomass-based liquid transportation fuels, including hydrogen; 

(ii) bioenergy; and 

(iii) biobased products, 

that support the energy and environmental missions of the Department; 

(B) improve understanding of the global carbon cycle, including processes 

for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, through photosynthesis 

and other biological processes, for sequestration and storage; and 

(C) understand the biological mechanisms used to destroy, immobilize, or 

remove contaminants from subsurface environments. 

(2) RESEARCH PLAN.— 

(A) REQUIREMENT.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 

this Act, the Director shall prepare and transmit to Congress a research 

plan describing how the activities authorized under this subsection will be 

undertaken. 

(B) UTILIZATION OF EXISTING PLAN.—In developing the plan in subparagraph (A), the Director may utilize an existing research plan and update 

such plan to incorporate the activities identified in paragraph (1). 

(C) UPDATES.—Not later than 3 years after the initial report under this 

paragraph, and at least once every 3 years thereafter, the Director shall update the research plan and transmit it to Congress. 

(3) BIOENERGY RESEARCH CENTERS.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out the activities under paragraph (1), the 

Director shall support at least 3 bioenergy research centers to accelerate 

basic biological research, development, demonstration, and commercial application of biomass-based liquid transportation fuels, bioenergy, and 

biobased products that support the energy and environmental missions of 

the Department and are produced from a variety of regionally diverse feedstocks. 

(B) GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.—The Director shall ensure that the bioenergy research centers under this paragraph are established in geographically diverse locations. 

(C) SELECTION AND DURATION.—A center established under subparagraph 

(A) shall be selected on a competitive, merit-reviewed basis for a period of 

5 years beginning on the date of establishment of that center. A center already in existence on the date of enactment of this Act may continue to receive support for a period of 5 years beginning on the date of establishment 

of that center. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
55 

(4) ENABLING SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY PLAN.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in consultation with other relevant Federal agencies, the academic community, research-based nonprofit entities, 

and the private sector, shall develop a comprehensive plan for federally 

supported research and development activities that will support the energy 

and environmental missions of the Department and enable a competitive 

synthetic biology industry in the United States. 

(B) PLAN.—The plan developed under subparagraph (A) shall assess the 

need to create a database for synthetic biology information, the need and 

process for developing standards for biological parts, components and systems, and the need for a federally funded facility that enables the discovery, 

design, development, production, and systematic use of parts, components, 

and systems created through synthetic biology. The plan shall describe the 

role of the Federal Government in meeting these needs. 

(C) SUBMISSION TO CONGRESS.—The Secretary shall transmit the plan developed under subparagraph (A) to the Congress not later than 9 months 

after the date of enactment of this Act. 

(5) COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY AND SYSTEMS BIOLOGY KNOWLEDGEBASE.—As 

part of the activities described in paragraph (1), the Director, in collaboration 

with the Advanced Scientific Computing Research program described in section 

606, shall carry out research in computational biology, acquire or otherwise ensure the availability of hardware for biology-specific computation, and establish 

and maintain an open virtual database and information management system to 

centrally integrate systems biology data, analytical software, and computational 

modeling tools that will allow data sharing and free information exchange within the scientific community. 

(6) PROHIBITION ON BIOMEDICAL AND HUMAN CELL AND HUMAN SUBJECT RESEARCH.— 

(A) NO BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH.—In carrying out activities under subsection (b), the Secretary shall not conduct biomedical research. 

(B) LIMITATIONS.—Nothing in subsection (b) shall authorize the Secretary 

to conduct any research or demonstrations— 

(i) on human cells or human subjects; or 

(ii) designed to have direct application with respect to human cells 

or human subjects. 

(C) INFORMATION SHARING.—Nothing in this paragraph shall restrict the 

Department from sharing information, including research findings, research 

methodologies, models, or any other information, with any Federal agency. 

(7) REPEAL.—Section 977 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16317) 

is repealed. 

(c) CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES ACTIVITIES.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—As part of the activities authorized under subsection (a), the 

Director shall carry out climate and environmental science research, which 

shall include activities to— 

(A) understand, observe, and model the response of the Earth’s atmosphere and biosphere, including oceans, to increased concentrations of greenhouse gas emissions, and any associated changes in climate; 

(B) understand the processes for sequestration, destruction, immobilization, or removal of, and understand the movement of, contaminants and 

carbon in subsurface environments, including at facilities of the Department; and 

(C) inform potential mitigation and adaptation options for increased concentrations of greenhouse gas emissions and any associated changes in climate. 

(2) SUBSURFACE BIOGEOCHEMISTRY RESEARCH.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—As part of the activities described in paragraph (1), the 

Director shall carry out research to advance a fundamental understanding 

of coupled physical, chemical, and biological processes for controlling the 

movement of sequestered carbon and subsurface environmental contaminants, including field observations of subsurface microorganisms and fieldscale subsurface research. 

(B) COORDINATION.— 

(i) DIRECTOR.—The Director shall carry out activities under this 

paragraph in accordance with priorities established by the Department’s Under Secretary for Science to support and accelerate the decontamination of relevant facilities managed by the Department. 

(ii) UNDER SECRETARY FOR SCIENCE.—The Department’s Under Secretary for Science shall ensure the coordination of the activities of the 

Department, including activities under this paragraph, to support and 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
56 

accelerate the decontamination of relevant facilities managed by the 

Department. 

(3) NEXT-GENERATION ECOSYSTEM-CLIMATE EXPERIMENT.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—As part of the activities described in paragraph (1), the 

Director, in collaboration with other relevant agencies that are participants 

in the United States Global Change Research Program, shall carry out the 

selection and development of a next-generation ecosystem-climate change 

experiment to understand the impact and feedbacks of increased temperature and elevated carbon levels on ecosystems. 

(B) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 

Act, the Director shall transmit to the Congress a report containing— 

(i) an identification of the location or locations that have been selected for the experiment described in subparagraph (A); 

(ii) a description of the need for additional experiments; and 

(iii) an associated research plan. 

(4) AMERIFLUX NETWORK COORDINATION AND RESEARCH.—As part of the activities described in paragraph (1), the Director shall carry out research and coordinate the AmeriFlux Network to directly observe and understand the exchange 

of greenhouse gases, water vapor, and heat energy within terrestrial ecosystems 

and the response of those systems to climate change and other dynamic terrestrial landscape changes. The Director, in collaboration with other relevant Federal agencies, shall— 

(A) identify opportunities to incorporate innovative and emerging observation technologies and practices into the existing Network; 

(B) conduct research to determine the need for increased greenhouse gas 

observation Network facilities across North America to meet future mitigation and adaptation needs of the United States; and 

(C) examine how the technologies and practices described in subparagraph (A), and increased coordination among scientific communities 

through the Network, have the potential to help characterize terrestrial 

baseline greenhouse gas emission sources and sinks in the United States 

and internationally. 

(5) CLIMATE AND EARTH MODELING.—As part of the activities described in 

paragraph (1), the Director, in collaboration with the Advanced Scientific Computing Research program described in section 606, shall carry out research to 

develop, evaluate, and use high-resolution regional climate, global climate, 

Earth, and predictive models to inform decisions on reducing the impacts of 

changing climate. 

(6) INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT RESEARCH.—As part of the activities described in 

paragraph (1), the Director shall carry out research into options for mitigation 

of and adaptation to climate change through multiscale models of the entire climate system. Such modeling shall include human processes and greenhouse gas 

emissions, land use, and interaction among human and Earth systems. 

(7) COORDINATION.—The Director shall coordinate activities under this subsection with other Office of Science activities and with the United States Global 

Change Research Program. 

(d) USER FACILITIES AND ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Director shall carry out a program for the construction, 

operation, and maintenance of user facilities to support the program under this 

section. As practicable, these facilities shall serve the needs of the Department, 

industry, the academic community, and other relevant entities. 

(2) INCLUDED FUNCTIONS.—User facilities described in paragraph (1) shall include facilities which carry out— 

(A) genome sequencing and analysis of plants, microbes, and microbial 

communities using high throughput tools, technologies, and comparative 

analysis; 

(B) molecular level research in biological, chemical, environmental, and 

subsurface sciences, including synthesis, dynamic properties, and interactions among natural and engineered materials; and 

(C) measurement of cloud and aerosol properties used for examining atmospheric processes and evaluating climate model performance, including 

ground stations at various locations, mobile resources, and aerial vehicles. 

SEC. 606. ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH PROGRAM. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—As part of the activities authorized under section 603, the Director shall carry out a research, development, demonstration, and commercial application program to advance computational and networking capabilities to analyze, 

model, simulate, and predict complex phenomena relevant to the development of 

new energy technologies and the competitiveness of the United States. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
57 

(b) COORDINATION.— 

(1) DIRECTOR.—The Director shall carry out activities under this section in accordance with priorities established by the Department’s Under Secretary for 

Science to determine and meet the computational and networking research and 

facility needs of the Office of Science and all other relevant energy technology 

and energy efficiency programs within the Department. 

(2) UNDER SECRETARY FOR SCIENCE.—The Department’s Under Secretary for 

Science shall ensure the coordination of the activities of the Department, including activities under this section, to determine and meet the computational and 

networking research and facility needs of the Office of Science and all other relevant energy technology and energy efficiency programs within the Department. 

(c) RESEARCH TO SUPPORT ENERGY APPLICATIONS.—As part of the activities authorized under subsection (a), the program shall support research in high-performance computing and networking relevant to energy applications, including both 

basic and applied energy research programs carried out by the Secretary. 

(d) REPORTS.— 

(1) ADVANCED COMPUTING FOR ENERGY APPLICATIONS.—Not later than one 

year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to the 

Congress a plan to integrate and leverage the expertise and capabilities of the 

program described in subsection (a), as well as other relevant computational 

and networking research programs and resources supported by the Federal Government, to advance the missions of the Department’s applied energy and energy efficiency programs. 

(2) EXASCALE COMPUTING.—At least 18 months prior to the initiation of construction or installation of any exascale-class computing facility, the Secretary 

shall transmit a plan to the Congress detailing— 

(A) the proposed facility’s cost projections and capabilities to significantly 

accelerate the development of new energy technologies; 

(B) technical risks and challenges that must be overcome to achieve successful completion and operation of the facility; and 

(C) an assessment of the scientific and technological advances expected 

from such a facility relative to those expected from a comparable investment in expanded research and applications at terascale-class and 

petascale-class computing facilities. 

(e) APPLIED MATHEMATICS AND SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT FOR HIGH-END COMPUTING SYSTEMS.—The Director shall carry out activities to develop, test, and support mathematics, models, and algorithms for complex systems, as well as programming environments, tools, languages, and operating systems for high-end computing 

systems (as defined in section 2 of the Department of Energy High-End Computing 

Revitalization Act of 2004 (15 U.S.C. 5541)). 

(f) HIGH-END COMPUTING FACILITIES.—The Director shall— 

(1) provide for sustained access by the public and private research community 

in the United States to high-end computing systems, including access to the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center and to Leadership Systems 

(as defined in section 2 of the Department of Energy High-End Computing Revitalization Act of 2004 (15 U.S.C. 5541)); 

(2) provide technical support for users of such systems; and 

(3) conduct research and development on next-generation computing architectures and platforms to support the missions of the Department. 

(g) OUTREACH.—The Secretary shall conduct outreach programs and may form 

partnerships to increase the use of and access to high-performance computing modeling and simulation capabilities by industry, including manufacturers. 

SEC. 607. FUSION ENERGY RESEARCH PROGRAM. 

(a) PROGRAM.—As part of the activities authorized under section 603, the Director 

shall carry out a fusion energy sciences research and enabling technology development program to effectively address the scientific and engineering challenges to 

building a cost-competitive fusion power plant and a competitive fusion power industry in the United States. As part of this program, the Director shall carry out research activities to expand the fundamental understanding of plasmas and matter 

at very high temperatures and densities. 

(b) ITER.—The Director shall coordinate and carry out the responsibilities of the 

United States with respect to the ITER international fusion project pursuant to the 

Agreement on the Establishment of the ITER International Fusion Energy Organization for the Joint Implementation of the ITER Project. 

(c) IDENTIFICATION OF PRIORITIES.—Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to the Congress a report on the 

Department’s proposed research and development activities in magnetic fusion over 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
58 

the 10 years following the date of enactment of this Act under four realistic budget 

scenarios. The report shall— 

(1) identify specific areas of fusion energy research and enabling technology 

development in which the United States can and should establish or solidify a 

lead in the global fusion energy development effort; and 

(2) identify priorities for initiation of facility construction and facility decommissioning under each of those scenarios. 

(d) FUSION MATERIALS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.—The Director, in coordination with the Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy of the Department, shall carry 

out research and development activities to identify, characterize, and create materials that can endure the neutron, plasma, and heat fluxes expected in a commercial 

fusion power plant. As part of the activities authorized under subsection (c), the Secretary shall— 

(1) provide an assessment of the need for a facility or facilities that can examine and test potential fusion and next generation fission materials and other enabling technologies relevant to the development of commercial fusion power 

plants; and 

(2) provide an assessment of whether a single new facility that substantially 

addresses magnetic fusion, inertial fusion, and next generation fission materials 

research needs is feasible, in conjunction with the expected capabilities of facilities operational as of the date of enactment of this Act. 

(e) ENABLING TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.—The Director shall carry out activities 

to develop technologies necessary to enable the reliable, sustainable, safe, and economically competitive operation of a commercial fusion power plant. 

(f) FUSION SIMULATION PROJECT.—In collaboration with the Office of Science’s Advanced Scientific Computing Research program described in section 606, the Director shall carry out a computational project to advance the capability of fusion researchers to accurately simulate an entire fusion energy system. 

(g) INERTIAL FUSION ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.—The Secretary shall carry out a program of research and technology development in inertial 

fusion for energy applications, including ion beam and laser fusion. Not later than 

180 days after the release of a report from the National Academies on inertial fusion 

energy research, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report describing the 

Department’s plan to incorporate any relevant recommendations from the National 

Academies’ report into this program. 

SEC. 608. HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS PROGRAM. 

(a) PROGRAM.—As part of the activities authorized under section 603, the Director 

shall carry out a research program on the elementary constituents of matter and 

energy and the nature of space and time. 

(b) NEUTRINO RESEARCH.—As part of the program described in subsection (a), the 

Director shall carry out research activities on rare decay processes and the nature 

of the neutrino, which may— 

(1) include collaborations with the National Science Foundation on relevant 

projects; and 

(2) utilize components of existing accelerator facilities to produce neutrino 

beams of sufficient intensity to explore research priorities identified by the High 

Energy Physics Advisory Panel or the National Academy of Sciences. 

(c) DARK ENERGY AND DARK MATTER RESEARCH.—As part of the program described in subsection (a), the Director shall carry out research activities on the nature of dark energy and dark matter. These activities shall be consistent with research priorities identified by the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel or the National Academy of Sciences, and may include— 

(1) the development of space-based and land-based facilities and experiments; 

and 

(2) collaborations with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 

the National Science Foundation, or international collaborations on relevant research projects. 

(d) ACCELERATOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.—The Director shall carry out research and development in advanced accelerator concepts and technologies to reduce 

the necessary scope and cost for the next generation of particle accelerators. 

(e) INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION.—The Director, as practicable and in coordination with other appropriate Federal agencies as necessary, shall ensure the access 

of United States researchers to the most advanced accelerator facilities and research 

capabilities in the world, including the Large Hadron Collider. 

SEC. 609. NUCLEAR PHYSICS PROGRAM. 

(a) PROGRAM.—As part of the activities authorized under section 603, the Director 

shall carry out a research program, and support relevant facilities, to discover and 

understand various forms of nuclear matter. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
59 

(b) FACILITY CONSTRUCTION AND UPGRADES.—Consistent with the Office of 

Science’s project management practices, the Director shall carry out— 

(1) an upgrade of the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility to a 12 

gigaelectronvolt beam of electrons; and 

(2) construction of the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams. 

(c) ISOTOPE DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION FOR RESEARCH APPLICATIONS.—The 

Director shall carry out a program for the production of isotopes, including the development of techniques to produce isotopes, that the Secretary determines are 

needed for research or other purposes. In making this determination, the Secretary 

shall consider any relevant recommendations made by Federal advisory committees, 

the National Academies, and interagency working groups in which the Department 

participates. 

SEC. 610. SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM. 

(a) PROGRAM.—The Director shall carry out a program to improve the safety, efficiency, and mission readiness of infrastructure at Office of Science laboratories. The 

program shall include projects to— 

(1) renovate or replace space that does not meet research needs; 

(2) replace facilities that are no longer cost effective to renovate or operate; 

(3) modernize utility systems to prevent failures and ensure efficiency; 

(4) remove excess facilities to allow safe and efficient operations; and 

(5) construct modern facilities to conduct advanced research in controlled environmental conditions. 

(b) MINOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.— 

(1) AUTHORITY.—Using operation and maintenance funds or facilities and infrastructure funds authorized by law, the Secretary may carry out minor construction projects with respect to laboratories administered by the Office of 

Science. 

(2) ANNUAL REPORT.—The Secretary shall submit to Congress, as part of the 

annual budget submission of the Department, a report on each exercise of the 

authority under subsection (a) during the preceding fiscal year. Each report 

shall include a summary of maintenance and infrastructure needs and associated funding requirements at each of the laboratories, including the amount of 

both planned and deferred infrastructure spending at each laboratory. Each report shall provide a brief description of each minor construction project covered 

by the report. 

(3) COST VARIATION REPORTS.—If, at any time during the construction of any 

minor construction project, the estimated cost of the project is revised and the 

revised cost of the project exceeds the minor construction threshold, the Secretary shall immediately submit to Congress a report explaining the reasons for 

the cost variation. 

(4) DEFINITIONS.—In this section— 

(A) the term ‘‘minor construction project’’ means any plant project not 

specifically authorized by law for which the approved total estimated cost 

does not exceed the minor construction threshold; and 

(B) the term ‘‘minor construction threshold’’ means $10,000,000, with 

such amount to be adjusted by the Secretary in accordance with the Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index, or an appropriate alternative index as determined by the Secretary, once every five years after the 

date of enactment of this Act. 

(5) NONAPPLICABILITY.—Sections 4703 and 4704 of the Atomic Energy Defense 

Act (50 U.S.C. 2743 and 2744) shall not apply to laboratories administered by 

the Office of Science. 

SEC. 611. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for the activities of the 

Office of Science— 

(1) $5,247,000,000 for fiscal year 2011, of which— 

(A) $1,875,000,000 shall be for Basic Energy Sciences activities under section 604; 

(B) $667,000,000 shall be for Biological and Environmental Research activities under section 605; and 

(C) $466,000,000 shall be for Advanced Scientific Computing Research activities under section 606; 

(2) $5,614,000,000 for fiscal year 2012, of which— 

(A) $2,025,000,000 shall be for Basic Energy Sciences activities under section 604; 

(B) $720,000,000 shall be for Biological and Environmental Research activities under section 605; and 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
60 

(C) $503,000,000 shall be for Advanced Scientific Computing Research activities under section 606; 

(3) $6,007,000,000 for fiscal year 2013, of which— 

(A) $2,187,000,000 shall be for Basic Energy Sciences activities under section 604; 

(B) $778,000,000 shall be for Biological and Environmental Research activities under section 605; and 

(C) $544,000,000 shall be for Advanced Scientific Computing Research activities under section 606; 

(4) $6,428,000,000 for fiscal year 2014, of which— 

(A) $2,362,000,000 shall be for Basic Energy Sciences activities under section 604; 

(B) $840,000,000 shall be for Biological and Environmental Research activities under section 605; and 

(C) $587,000,000 shall be for Advanced Scientific Computing Research activities under section 606; and 

(5) $6,878,000,000 for fiscal year 2015, of which— 

(A) $2,551,000,000 shall be for Basic Energy Sciences activities under section 604; 

(B) $907,000,000 shall be for Biological and Environmental Research activities under section 605; and 

(C) $634,000,000 shall be for Advanced Scientific Computing Research activities under section 606. 

Subtitle B—Advanced Research Projects AgencyEnergy 

SEC. 621. SHORT TITLE. 

This subtitle may be cited as the ‘‘ARPA-E Reauthorization Act of 2010’’. 

SEC. 622. ARPA-E AMENDMENTS. 

Section 5012 of the America COMPETES Act (42 U.S.C. 16538) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (c)(2)— 

(A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ‘‘and applied’’ after ‘‘advances in 

fundamental’’; 

(B) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of subparagraph (B); 

(C) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (C) and inserting 

‘‘; and’’; and 

(D) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: 

‘‘(D) promoting the commercial application of advanced energy technologies.’’; 

(2) in subsection (e)(3), by amending subparagraph (C) to read as follows: 

‘‘(C) research and development of advanced manufacturing process and 

technologies for the domestic manufacturing of novel energy technologies; 

and’’; 

(3) in subsection (e)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (3)(D); 

(B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (4) and inserting ‘‘; 

and’’; and 

(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph: 

‘‘(5) pursuant to subsection (c)(2)(C)— 

‘‘(A) ensuring that applications for funding disclose the extent of current 

and prior efforts, including monetary investments as appropriate, in pursuit 

of the technology area for which funding is being requested; 

‘‘(B) adopting measures to ensure that, in making awards, program managers adhere to the objectives in subsection (c)(2)(C); and 

‘‘(C) providing as part of the annual report required by subsection (h)(1) 

a summary of the instances of and reasons for ARPA-E funding projects in 

technology areas already being undertaken by industry.’’; 

(4) by redesignating subsections (f) through (m) as subsections (g), (h), (i), (j), 

(l), (m), (n), and (o), respectively; 

(5) by inserting after subsection (e) the following new subsection: 

‘‘(f) AWARDS.—In carrying out this section, the Director shall initiate and execute 

awards in the form of grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, cash prizes, and 

other transactions.’’; 

(6) in subsection (g), as so redesignated by paragraph (4) of this section— 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
61 

(A) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as paragraphs (2) and (3), respectively; 

(B) by inserting before paragraph (2), as so redesignated by subparagraph 

(A) of this paragraph, the following new paragraph: 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Director shall establish and maintain within ARPA-E 

a staff with sufficient qualifications and expertise to enable ARPA-E to carry 

out its responsibilities under this section in conjunction with the operations of 

the rest of the Department.’’; 

(C) in paragraph (2)(A), as so redesignated by subparagraph (A) of this 

paragraph— 

(i) in the paragraph heading, by striking ‘‘PROGRAM MANAGERS’’ and 

inserting ‘‘PROGRAM DIRECTORS’’; 

(ii) by striking ‘‘program managers’’ and inserting ‘‘program directors’’; and 

(iii) by striking ‘‘each of’’. 

(D) in paragraph (2)(B), as so redesignated by subparagraph (A) of this 

paragraph— 

(i) by striking ‘‘program manager’’ and inserting ‘‘program director’’; 

(ii) in clause (iv), by striking ‘‘, with advice under subsection (j) as 

appropriate,’’; 

(iii) by redesignating clauses (v) and (vi) as clauses (vi) and (viii), respectively; 

(iv) by inserting after clause (iv) the following new clause: 

‘‘(v) identifying innovative cost-sharing arrangements for ARPA-E 

projects, including through use of the authority under section 988(b)(3) 

of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16352(b)(3));’’; 

(v) in clause (vi), as so redesignated by clause (iii) of this subparagraph, by striking ‘‘; and’’ and inserting a semicolon; and 

(vi) by inserting after clause (vi), as so redesignated by clause (iii) of 

this subparagraph, the following new clause: 

‘‘(vii) identifying mechanisms for commercial application of successful 

energy technology development projects, including through establishment of partnerships between awardees and commercial entities; and’’; 

(E) in paragraph (2)(C), as so redesignated by subparagraph (A) of this 

paragraph, by inserting ‘‘up to’’ after ‘‘shall be’’; 

(F) in paragraph (3), as so redesignated by subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, by striking subparagraph (B) and redesignating subparagraphs (C) 

and (D) as subparagraphs (B) and (C), respectively; and 

(G) by adding at the end the following new paragraph: 

‘‘(4) FELLOWSHIPS.—The Director is authorized to select exceptional early-career and senior scientific, legal, business, and technical personnel to serve as 

fellows to work at ARPA-E for terms not to exceed two years. Responsibilities 

of fellows may include— 

‘‘(A) supporting program managers in program creation, design, implementation, and management; 

‘‘(B) exploring technical fields for future ARPA-E program areas; 

‘‘(C) assisting the Director in the creation of the strategic vision for 

ARPA-E referred to in subsection (h)(2); 

‘‘(D) preparing energy technology and economic analyses; and 

‘‘(E) any other appropriate responsibilities identified by the Director.’’; 

(7) in subsection (h)(2), as so redesignated by paragraph (4) of this section— 

(A) by striking ‘‘2008’’ and inserting ‘‘2010’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘2011’’ and inserting ‘‘2013’’; 

(8) by amending subsection (j), as so redesignated by paragraph (4) of this section, to read as follows: 

‘‘(j) FEDERAL DEMONSTRATION OF TECHNOLOGIES.—The Director shall seek opportunities to partner with purchasing and procurement programs of Federal agencies 

to demonstrate energy technologies resulting from activities funded through ARPAE.’’; 

(9) by inserting after such subsection (j) the following new subsection: 

‘‘(k) EVENTS.— 

‘‘(1) The Director is authorized to convene, organize, and sponsor events that 

further the objectives of ARPA-E, including events that assemble awardees, the 

most promising applicants for ARPA-E funding, and a broad range of ARPA-E 

stakeholders (which may include members of relevant scientific research and 

academic communities, government officials, financial institutions, private investors, entrepreneurs, and other private entities), for the purposes of— 

‘‘(A) demonstrating projects of ARPA-E awardees; 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
62 

‘‘(B) demonstrating projects of finalists for ARPA-E awards and other energy technology projects; 

‘‘(C) facilitating discussion of the commercial application of energy technologies developed under ARPA-E and other government-sponsored research and development programs; or 

‘‘(D) such other purposes as the Director considers appropriate. 

‘‘(2) Funding for activities described in paragraph (1) shall be provided as part 

of the technology transfer and outreach activities authorized under subsection 

(o)(4)(B).’ ’’’; 

(10) in subsection (m)(1), as so redesignated by paragraph (4) of this section, 

by striking ‘‘4 years’’ and inserting ‘‘6 years’’; 

(11) in subsection (m)(2)(B), as so redesignated by paragraph (4) of this section, by inserting ‘‘, and how those lessons may apply to the operation of other 

programs within the Department of Energy’’ after ‘‘ARPA-E’’; 

(12) by amending subsection (o)(2), as so redesignated by paragraph (4) of this 

section, to read as follows: 

‘‘(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Subject to paragraph (4), there are 

authorized to be appropriated to the Director for deposit in the Fund, without 

fiscal year limitation— ‘‘(A) $300,000,000 for fiscal year 2011; 

‘‘(B) $450,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; 

‘‘(C) $600,000,000 for fiscal year 2013; 

‘‘(D) $800,000,000 for fiscal year 2014; and 

‘‘(E) $1,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2015.’’; 

(13) in subsection (o), as so redesignated by paragraph (4) of this section, by— 

(A) striking paragraph (4); and 

(B) redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (4); and 

(14) in subsection (o)(4)(B), as so redesignated by paragraphs (4) and (13)(B) 

of this subsection— 

(A) by striking ‘‘2.5 percent’’ and inserting ‘‘5 percent’’; and 

(B) by inserting ‘‘, consistent with the goal described in subsection 

(c)(2)(D) and within the responsibilities of program directors as specified in 

subsection (g)(2)(B)(vii)’’ after ‘‘outreach activities’’. 

Subtitle C—Energy Innovation Hubs 

SEC. 631. SHORT TITLE. 

This subtitle may be cited as the ‘‘Energy Innovation Hubs Authorization Act of 

2010’’. 

SEC. 632. ENERGY INNOVATION HUBS. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Energy shall carry out a program to enhance the Nation’s economic, environmental, and energy security by making 

grants to consortia for establishing and operating Energy Innovation Hubs to 

conduct and support, whenever practicable at one centralized location, multidisciplinary, collaborative research, development, demonstration, and commercial application of advanced energy technologies in areas not being served by 

the private sector. 

(2) TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT FOCUS.—The Secretary shall designate for 

each Hub a unique advanced energy technology development focus. 

(3) COORDINATION.—The Secretary shall ensure the coordination of, and avoid 

unnecessary duplication of, the activities of Hubs with those of other Department of Energy research entities, including the National Laboratories, the Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy, and Energy Frontier Research Centers, and within industry. Such coordination shall include convening and consulting with representatives of staff of the Department of Energy, representatives from Hubs and the qualifying entities that are members of the consortia 

operating the Hubs, and representatives of such other entities as the Secretary 

considers appropriate, to share research results, program plans, and opportunities for collaboration. 

(4) ADMINISTRATION.—The Secretary shall administer this section with respect to each Hub through the Department program office appropriate to administer the subject matter of the technology development focus assigned under 

paragraph (2) for the Hub. 

(b) CONSORTIA.— 

(1) ELIGIBILITY.—To be eligible to receive a grant under this section for the 

establishment and operation of a Hub, a consortium shall— 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
63 

(A) be composed of no fewer than 2 qualifying entities; 

(B) operate subject to a binding agreement entered into by its members 

that documents— 

(i) the proposed partnership agreement, including the governance and 

management structure of the Hub; 

(ii) measures to enable cost-effective implementation of the program 

under this section; 

(iii) a proposed budget, including financial contributions from nonFederal sources; 

(iv) conflict of interest procedures consistent with subsection (d)(3), 

all known material conflicts of interest, and corresponding mitigation 

plans; 

(v) an accounting structure that enables the Secretary to ensure that 

the consortium has complied with the requirements of this section; and 

(vi) an external advisory committee consistent with subsection (d)(2); 

and 

(C) operate as a nonprofit organization. 

(2) APPLICATION.—A consortium seeking to establish and operate a Hub under 

this section, acting through a prime applicant, shall transmit to the Secretary 

an application at such time, in such form, and accompanied by such information 

as the Secretary shall require, including a detailed description of the elements 

of the consortium agreement required under paragraph (1)(B). If the consortium 

members will not be located at one centralized location, such application shall 

include a communications plan that ensures close coordination and integration 

of the Hub’s activities. 

(c) SELECTION AND SCHEDULE.—The Secretary shall select consortia for grants for 

the establishment and operation of Hubs through competitive selection processes. 

Grants made to a Hub shall be for a period not to exceed 5 years, after which the 

grant may be renewed, subject to a competitive selection process. 

(d) HUB OPERATIONS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Hubs shall conduct or provide for multidisciplinary, collaborative research, development, demonstration, and commercial application of advanced energy technologies within the technology development focus designated 

for the Hub by the Secretary under subsection (a)(2). Each Hub shall— 

(A) encourage collaboration and communication among the member qualifying entities of the consortium and awardees by conducting activities 

whenever practicable at one centralized location; 

(B) develop and publish on the Department of Energy’s website proposed 

plans and programs; 

(C) submit an annual report to the Secretary summarizing the Hub’s activities, including detailing organizational expenditures, listing external advisory committee members, and describing each project undertaken by the 

Hub; and 

(D) monitor project implementation and coordination. 

(2) EXTERNAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE.—Each Hub shall establish an external 

advisory committee, the membership of which shall have sufficient expertise to 

advise and provide guidance on scientific, technical, industry, financial, and research management matters. 

(3) CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.— 

(A) PROCEDURES.—Hubs shall establish conflict of interest procedures, 

consistent with those of the Department of Energy, to ensure that employees and consortia designees for Hub activities who are in decisionmaking 

capacities disclose all material conflicts of interest, including financial, organizational, and personal conflicts of interest. 

(B) DISQUALIFICATION AND REVOCATION.—The Secretary may disqualify 

an application or revoke funds distributed to a Hub if the Secretary discovers a failure to comply with conflict of interest procedures established 

under subparagraph (A). 

(e) PROHIBITION ON CONSTRUCTION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—No funds provided pursuant to this section may be used for 

construction of new buildings or facilities for Hubs. Construction of new buildings or facilities shall not be considered as part of the non-Federal share of a 

Hub cost-sharing agreement. 

(2) TEST BED AND RENOVATION EXCEPTION.—Nothing in this subsection shall 

prohibit the use of funds provided pursuant to this section, or non-Federal cost 

share funds, for the construction of a test bed or renovations to existing buildings or facilities for the purposes of research if the Oversight Board determines 

that the test bed or renovations are limited to a scope and scale necessary for 

the research to be conducted. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
64 

(f) OVERSIGHT BOARD.—The Secretary shall establish and maintain within the Department an Oversight Board to oversee the progress of Hubs. 

(g) PRIORITY CONSIDERATION.—The Secretary shall give priority consideration to 

applications in which 1 or more of the institutions under subsection (b)(1)(A) are 

1890 Land Grant Institutions (as defined in section 2 of the Agricultural Research, 

Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7061)), Predominantly Black 

Institutions (as defined in section 318 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 

U.S.C. 1059e)), Tribal Colleges or Universities (as defined in section 316(b) of the 

Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1059c(b)), or Hispanic Serving Institutions 

(as defined in section 318 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1059e)). 

(h) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section: 

(1) ADVANCED ENERGY TECHNOLOGY.—The term ‘‘advanced energy technology’’ 

means an innovative technology— 

(A) that produces energy from solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, tidal, 

wave, ocean, or other renewable energy resources; 

(B) that produces nuclear energy; 

(C) for carbon capture and sequestration; 

(D) that enables advanced vehicles, vehicle components, and related technologies that result in significant energy savings; 

(E) that generates, transmits, distributes, utilizes, or stores energy more 

efficiently than conventional technologies; or 

(F) that enhances the energy independence and security of the United 

States by enabling improved or expanded supply and production of domestic 

energy resources, including coal, oil, and natural gas. 

(2) HUB.—The term ‘‘Hub’’ means an Energy Innovation Hub established in 

accordance with this section. 

(3) INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION.—The term ‘‘institution of higher education’’ has the meaning given that term in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)). 

(4) QUALIFYING ENTITY.—The term ‘‘qualifying entity’’ means— 

(A) an institution of higher education; 

(B) an appropriate State or Federal entity, including the Department of 

Energy Federally Funded Research and Development Centers; 

(C) a nongovernmental organization with expertise in advanced energy 

technology research, development, demonstration, or commercial application; or 

(D) any other relevant entity the Secretary considers appropriate. 

(5) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of Energy. 

(i) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated 

to the Secretary to carry out this section— 

(1) $110,000,000 for fiscal year 2011; 

(2) $135,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; 

(3) $195,000,000 for fiscal year 2013; 

(4) $210,000,000 for fiscal year 2014; and 

(5) $210,000,000 for fiscal year 2015. 

Subtitle D—Cooperative Research and 

Development Fund 

SEC. 641. SHORT TITLE. 

This subtitle may be cited as the ‘‘Cooperative Research and Development Fund 

Authorization Act of 2010’’. 

SEC. 642. COOPERATIVE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FUND. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Energy shall make funds available to Department of Energy National Laboratories for the Federal share of cooperative research 

and development agreements. The Secretary of Energy shall determine the apportionment of such funds to each Department of Energy National Laboratory and shall 

ensure that special consideration is given to small business firms and consortia involving small business firms in the selection process for which cooperative research 

and development agreements will receive such funds. 

(b) REPORTING.—Each year the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report that 

describes how funds were expended under this subtitle. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated 

to the Secretary such sums as are necessary to carry out this section each fiscal 

year. No funds allocated for this section shall come from funds allocated for the Office of Science. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
65 

TITLE VII—MISCELLANEOUS 

SEC. 701. SENSE OF CONGRESS. 

It is the sense of Congress that, among the programs and activities authorized 

in this Act, those that correspond to the recommendations of the National Academy 

of Sciences’ 2005 report entitled ‘‘Rising Above the Gathering Storm’’ remain critical 

to maintaining long-term United States economic competitiveness, and accordingly 

shall receive funding priority. 

SEC. 702. PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES. 

For the purposes of the activities and programs supported by this Act and the 

amendments made by this Act, institutions of higher education chartered to serve 

large numbers of students with disabilities, including Gallaudet University, Landmark College, and the National Technical Institute for the Deaf and those with programs serving or those serving disabled veterans, shall receive special consideration 

and have a designation consistent with the designation for other institutions that 

serve populations underrepresented in STEM to ensure that institutions of higher 

education chartered to or serving persons with disabilities benefit from such activities and programs. 

SEC. 703. VETERANS AND SERVICE MEMBERS. 

In awarding scholarships and fellowships under this Act, an institution of higher 

education shall give preference to applications from veterans and service members, 

including those who have received or will receive the Afghanistan Campaign Medal 

or the Iraq Campaign Medal as authorized by Public Law 108–234 (10 U.S.C. 1121 

note; 118 Stat. 655) and Executive Order No. 13363. 

I. BILL

II. PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of the bill is to invest in innovation through research and development and to improve the competitiveness of the 

United States. It reauthorizes the National Science Foundation, the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Department of 

Energy’s Office of Science, and the Advanced Projects Agency—Energy at the Department of Energy. The bill also authorizes new innovation-focused programs at the Department of Commerce and an 

energy innovation hub program at the Department of Energy. 

III. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

TITLE I—SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY 

Subtitle A—National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments 

The Science and Technology Committee was instrumental in the 

development and enactment of the 21st Century Nanotechnology 

Research and Development Act of 2003 (P.L. 108–153), which authorizes the interagency National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). 

The 2003 statute put in place formal interagency planning, budgeting, and coordinating mechanisms for NNI. The National Science 

and Technology Council (NSTC), through the Nanoscale Science, 

Engineering, and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee, plans and coordinates the NNI, and the National Nanotechnology Coordination 

Office (NNCO) provides technical and administrative support to the 

NSET. There are currently twenty-five Federal agencies that participate in the NNI, with 15 of those agencies reporting a nanotechnology research and development budget. The total NNI budget 

proposed for fiscal year 2011 is $1.76 billion. 

P.L. 108–153 also provides for formal reviews of the content and 

management of the program by the National Academy of Sciences 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
66 

and by the NNI Advisory Panel, a statutorily created advisory committee of non-government experts. These reviews have found that 

the coordination and planning processes among the participating 

agencies in the NNI are largely effective. However, the formal reviews by external experts noted above, as well as the findings of 

the Committee’s oversight hearings on the NNI, have identified aspects of the interagency program that could be strengthened and 

improved. These areas are environmental, health and safety research; technology transfer and the fostering of commercialization 

of research results; and educational activities. 

Subtitle B—Networking and Information Technology Research and 

Development 

The NITRD program, originally authorized in the High Performance Computing Act of 1991 (P.L. 102–194), is a multi-agency research effort to accelerate progress in the advancement of computing and networking technologies and to support leading edge 

computational research in a range of science and engineering 

fields. The 1991 statute established a set of mechanisms and procedures to provide for interagency planning, coordination, and budgeting of R&D activities carried out under the program. The NITRD 

Subcommittee of the NSTC is the working body for interagency 

planning and coordination and includes representatives from each 

of the participating NITRD agencies as well as the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). In fiscal year 2011 the 13 Federal agencies 

involved in the NITRD program requested a total budget of $4.26 

billion. 

In August 2007, PCAST completed an assessment of the NITRD 

program and issued a report entitled, Leadership Under Challenge: 

Information Technology R&D in a Competitive World. The report 

indicates that while the U.S. remains the global leader in NIT, several countries, including China and India, are investing heavily in 

R&D and higher education. PCAST found that while the NITRD 

program has been effective at addressing the IT needs of the Federal agencies and the Nation, a number of changes are necessary 

to guarantee continued U.S. leadership in networking and information technology. Specifically, PCAST recommended improvements 

in the program’s planning, prioritization and coordination functions; a rebalancing of the investment portfolio toward long-term, 

large-scale R&D; adjustments to the research content of the program; and a focus on workforce training through improved NIT 

education. 

Subtitle C—Other OSTP Provisions 

Science and technology have become increasingly more important 

in the national decision-making process, but the complexity of such 

issues requires long-term planning and coordination, as well as immediate program development and action. OSTP, often acting 

through the NSTC, plays a central role in guiding the course of the 

Nation’s scientific enterprise. The need to establish a long-term, 

interagency vision for the preservation of Federal scientific collections, manufacturing research and development, and public access 

to federally funded research has emerged. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
67 

TITLE II—NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

NSF is an independent Federal agency created by the National 

Science Foundation Act of 1950 (P.L. 81–507). NSF’s mission is 

unique among the Federal government’s scientific research agencies in that it is to support science and engineering across all disciplines. NSF currently funds research and education activities at 

more than 1,900 universities, colleges, and other public and private 

institutions throughout the United States, supporting more than 

240,000 researchers, postdoctoral fellows, teachers, students and 

trainees. Virtually all of this support is provided through competitive, merit-reviewed grants and cooperative agreements. Although 

NSF’s research and development budget accounts for only about 

three percent of all federally funded research, the role of NSF in 

promoting fundamental research is vital to the Nation’s scientific 

research enterprise, as NSF provides approximately 20 percent of 

the Federal support for basic research conducted at academic institutions. 

Basic research pays enormous dividends to society. Economic 

growth, public health, national defense, and social advancement 

have all been tied to technological developments resulting from research and development. The Administration’s Strategy for American Innovation, recognizes the importance of investing in fundamental research and STEM education as the basis for sustainable 

economic growth, and has the goal of increasing the amount of the 

Nation’s gross domestic product spent on research and development 

to 3 percent. 

NSF has a central role to play in a national innovation strategy 

and needs to see steady growth over the long-term to maximize the 

agency’s potential contribution to the research enterprise. NSF is 

currently able to fund only about 25 percent of the grant proposals 

received each year because of limited funds; in some directorates, 

the percentage of grant proposals funded is as low as 10 percent. 

The $3 billion received in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111–5) allowed NSF to fund a large number of previously declined, but highly rated proposals, raising NSF’s grant 

funding rate to 32 percent, the highest level since 2000. While the 

one-time investment in NSF through the Recovery Act was critical 

to keeping the scientific enterprise thriving and the brightest 

young people in the innovation pipeline, sustained growth will be 

necessary to maintain gains and in order to ensure future economic 

growth, and to strengthen homeland defense and national security. 

NSF was most recently authorized by the 2007 America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110–69), which authorized appropriations for NSF 

for FY 2008 through FY 2010. In addition to continuing authorizations of appropriations for five more years, several policy and administrative issues—including ones related to the Foundation’s responsibilities for funding high-risk, high reward research, for supporting and spurring innovation, for supporting postdoctoral research fellowships, for funding STEM education programs, for 

broadening participation in STEM, and for implementing clear 

guidelines for the broader impacts review criterion—have arisen 

since the last authorization bill. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
68 

TITLE III—STEM EDUCATION 

A consensus exists that improving science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education throughout the Nation is a necessary condition for preserving the U.S.’s capacity for innovation 

and discovery and for ensuring the nation’s economic strength and 

competitiveness. A variety of STEM education programs and activities exist for K–16 students and teachers at the Federal research 

and development agencies. For the most part, agencies have developed their programs independently and without a strategic plan for 

accomplishing a set of overarching goals and objectives. Furthermore, each program, if it has been evaluated at all, utilizes a 

unique method of evaluation, making comparison of effectiveness 

across the programs impossible. Finally, the agencies have at times 

had trouble building widespread awareness of their programs 

among teachers and other practitioners. Many of the witnesses at 

the Research and Science Education Subcommittee hearings held 

in the 110th Congress testified that there is a need for improved 

interagency and intra-agency coordination of Federal STEM education efforts in order to better communicate best practices and 

eliminate inefficiencies. 

In addition, several recent and high-profile reports have underscored the need to drastically improve STEM education in the 

United States, including: the National Academies’ Rising above the 

Gathering Storm; the National Science Board’s, A National Action 

Plan for Addressing the Critical Needs of the U.S. Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education System; and the 

Carnegie-IAS Commission on Mathematics and Science Education’s, Opportunity Equation. A key recommendation of the 

Board’s action plan was the creation of a Committee on STEM 

Education under the National Science and Technology Council responsible for coordinating STEM education programs across Federal science agencies and the Department of Education. 

In addition to the need for increased collaboration and communication among the agencies, many witnesses before the Committee 

and other stakeholders have suggested that agency activities need 

to be better aligned with the needs of STEM educators and state 

and local education agencies. Many have also called for increased 

coordination between Federal and non-Federal STEM education 

initiatives. The 2007 National Science Board report called for the 

establishment of a body that would facilitate improved communication and coordination between the Federal government and various 

public and private STEM education stakeholders. 

TITLE IV—NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

In NIST’s Organic Act (P.L. 56–177), Congress directed NIST to 

work on ‘‘the solution of problems which arise in connection with 

standards’’ and to engage in the ‘‘determination of physical constants and the properties of materials, when such data are of great 

importance to scientific or manufacturing interests and are not to 

be obtained of sufficient accuracy elsewhere.’’ 

In its implementation of this almost endless scope of work, NIST 

has been a key central component in the U.S. Government’s efforts 

to stimulate innovation, competitiveness, and in turn, job creation. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
69 

Since 1901, NIST has made key contributions to the development 

of integrated circuits, DNA diagnostic testing, digitized fingerprints, laser technology, closed-caption television, cholesterol testing, and cybersecurity, to name just a few. The Committee fully expects that NIST will make equally significant contributions in the 

next 100 years. Given its original Congressional mandate and its 

subsequent record, a NIST authorization was an important component of the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110–69). 

The original COMPETES legislation included the first comprehensive authorization of NIST in 15 years. That bill put funding 

for NIST’s labs and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership 

(MEP) program on a 10-year doubling path. It also replaced the 20- 

year-old Advanced Technology Program (ATP) with the Technology 

Innovation Program (TIP) to focus on small, high-tech, entrepreneurial firms and to encourage partnerships between these firms 

and universities. 

However, the NIST authorization in the first COMPETES bill 

largely maintained the status quo at NIST. In the face of accelerating global competition in innovation and competitiveness, NIST 

programs and structure need to reflect this new reality. It is the 

Committee’s responsibility to ensure that NIST continues to support the innovation in the sciences and manufacturing. 

TITLE V—INNOVATION 

In recent years, there have been increased calls for the Federal 

Government to be more active and engaged in efforts to foster innovation in the United States, and to do a better job at coordinating 

the innovation activities of the Federal Government. The Secretary 

of Commerce recently announced the intent to establish an Office 

of Innovation and Entrepreneurship at the Department of Commerce to help answer these calls, but the Office has not been statutorily authorized. Along these same lines, there has been much discussion about the need for the Federal Government to be more involved in efforts to empower local communities to develop innovation strategies, including through the development of innovation 

clusters, to spur innovation at a regional level. 

There is also widespread recognition that there is a need for 

small- and medium-sized manufacturers to retool themselves and 

innovate in order to remain competitive in the 21st century. The 

ability of small- and medium-sized manufacturers to implement innovative technologies in manufacturing is often limited, particularly by limited access to the capital necessary to retool. Many have 

encouraged the Federal Government to explore ways to ensure that 

small- and medium-sized manufacturers have the capital they need 

for these purposes. 

TITLE VI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Subtitle A—Office of Science 

Among its many recommendations the panel concluded that the 

government should increase its investment in its basic research 

portfolio, with special attention on the physical sciences, engineering, mathematics and the information sciences. The COMPETES 

Act followed on the panel’s recommendations by setting the DepartVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
70 

ment of Energy’s Office of Science budget on a path to double in 

7 years, along with the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. This follows roughly 

the funding trajectory set by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 by extending the authorizations an additional year to include fiscal year 

2010. However, beyond an authorization of appropriations, the 

COMPETES Act did not include any program guidance for the Office of Science. While such guidance was provided for select Office 

of Science research areas within the Energy Policy Act 2005, as 

well as the Department of Energy High-End Computing Revitalization Act of 2004, to date the Office of Science has never had comprehensive statutory guidance for its major research programs. 

The Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States with a current 

budget of roughly $5 billion, and manages 10 of the Department of 

Energy’s 17 laboratories. Created over a half-century ago, the national laboratory system is a major component of the nation’s research infrastructure. The ten Office of Science laboratories are: 

• Ames Laboratory (Ames, IA). 

• Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne, IL). 

• Brookhaven National Laboratory (Upton, NY). 

• Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Batavia, IL). 

• Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley, CA). 

• Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Oak Ridge, TN). 

• Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (Richland, WA). 

• Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (Princeton, NJ). 

• Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (Stanford, CA). 

• Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (Newport 

News, VA). 

The Office of Science oversees the construction and operation of 

some of the Nation’s most advanced research and development user 

facilities, located at national laboratories and universities. These 

include supercomputers, particle accelerators, and x-ray light 

sources and neutron scattering facilities that enable the examination of materials and chemical processes for a wide range of industrial and basic energy research applications. In the 2009 fiscal 

year, these facilities were used by more than 22,000 researchers 

from universities, national laboratories, private industry, and other 

federal science agencies. 

The Office of Science is a principal supporter of graduate students and postdoctoral researchers early in their careers. About a 

third of its research funding goes to support research at more than 

300 colleges and universities nationwide. In addition, about half 

the users at user facilities are from colleges and universities. The 

Office of Science makes extensive use of peer review and federal 

advisory committees to develop general directions for research investments, to identify priorities, and to determine the best scientific proposals to support. 

Subtitle B—Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy 

The Gathering Storm panel called on the federal government to 

create a new energy research agency (ARPA–E) within Department 

of Energy, patterned after the successful Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) within the Department of DeVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
71 

fense. According to the Gathering Storm report, ARPA-E should be 

structured to: 

‘‘. . . sponsor creative, out-of-the-box, transformational, generic 

energy research in those areas where industry by itself cannot 

or will not undertake such sponsorships, where risks and potential payoffs are high, and where success could provide dramatic benefits for the Nation. . . . It would be designed as a 

lean, effective, and agile—but largely independent—organization that can start and stop targeted programs based on performance and ultimate relevance.’’ 

The COMPETES Act of 2007 directed the Secretary of Energy to 

establish ARPA–E, and provided basic programmatic structure and 

guidance for the program. However, since funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ($400 million) and the 

Fiscal Year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act ($15 million) allowed 

for the establishment of ARPA-E, fiscal year 2010 will be the first 

full year of operation for the new program. 

ARPA–E borrows from the DARPA model in a number of ways 

that are intended to provide for agile management and rapid execution of high-risk, high-reward technology projects. Both utilize a 

flat reporting structure—the Director of ARPA-E reports directly to 

the Secretary of Energy—and both rely on a small team of highly 

technically qualified individuals to serve limited terms as Program 

Directors. Program Directors are given extraordinary resources and 

authority to make technical decisions, select research performers 

outside of the standard peer review process, and to carry successful 

projects through commercial application of the technology. The Director of ARPA-E may also exercise flexible hiring authority to 

quickly recruit these and other essential staff, and to compensate 

them at levels above standard federal pay scales. To attract nontraditional performers and negotiate intellectual property agreements ARPA-E also uses flexible contracting mechanisms called 

Technology Investment Agreements authorized for the Department 

as ‘‘Other Transactions Authority’’ in the Energy Policy Act of 

2005. 

To date, ARPA–E has issued three Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOA), and received applications for thousands of 

projects. Approximately 3700 concept papers were submitted for 

the first round of funding and, of those, 37 projects were ultimately 

chosen for awards. For that round, ARPA–E successfully completed 

awards within two months, which is considered by many to be a 

rapid pace for federal contracting. Second round FOA winners were 

announced in April, and it is expected that this and subsequent 

rounds will follow a similar pace for project selection and contracting. 

Recognizing the high volume of applicants as evidence of a pentup demand that exceeds the resources of ARPA-E, the Secretary 

held an ARPA–E Innovation Summit in early March of 2010. The 

Summit provided a forum for ARPA–E project awardees, finalists 

and others to exhibit their technology proposals, and for technology 

industries, the financial sector, academia and policymakers to discuss challenges faced in the development and adoption of advanced 

energy technologies. It is expected that ARPA–E will hold similar 

events in the future. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
72 

The COMPETES Act authorized appropriations for ARPA-E for 

fiscal years 2008 through 2010. In addition to extending authorizations, lessons learned in ARPA-E’s first year indicate that further 

programmatic guidance is needed to ensure that it operates as the 

independent and agile program envisioned by the Gathering Storm 

panel and authorized by Congress in the COMPETES Act. 

Subtitle C—Energy Innovation Hubs 

As part of a larger effort to strengthen the role of the federal energy research enterprise as an instrument of U.S. technological innovation and economic growth, a number of new models for research have emerged. In the rollout of the FY 2010 budget request 

Secretary Chu announced the Administration’s proposal to establish a system of Energy Innovation Hubs, modeled on the Bioenergy Research Centers established under the previous Administration. No statutory authorization exists specifically for Energy Innovation Hubs. 

To accelerate scientific and technological solutions to certain 

grand energy challenges, an Energy Innovation Hub, as described 

by the Secretary, will comprise a highly collaborative team spanning many disciplines including science, engineering, economics, 

and public policy ideally, but not exclusively, working together 

under one roof. This is similar to the model of the Manhattan 

Project, which developed the atomic bomb, and the legendary Bell 

Laboratories, where the invention of the transistor and the development of information theory, among other things, helped make 

possible the semiconductor industry and the Internet. 

Secretary Chu identified the following eight scientific areas as 

particularly resistant to the standard DOE research and development approach and thus appropriate for the focus of a Hub: (1) 

Fuels from Sunlight; (2) Nuclear Fuel Management; (3) Energy Efficient Building Systems; (4) Batteries and Energy Storage; (5) 

Solar Electricity; (6) Novel Carbon Capture and Storage; (7) Modeling and Simulation for Nuclear Reactors; and (8) Electrical Grid 

Systems. 

The Administration requested $280 million for FY2010 for the 

Hubs program with each Hub being funded $25 million per year 

over five years and an additional $10 million in the first year for 

start up costs. The funding was to be awarded on the basis of external peer-review of proposals submitted in response to a funding 

opportunity announcement (FOA), and awards contingent upon finalization and approval of DOE’s FY2010 budget. However, Appropriators funded only three of the Hubs requested by the administration at $22 million each which included Fuels from Sunlight, 

Energy Efficient Buildings and Modeling and Simulation for Nuclear Reactors. In the President’s FY2011 budget request, there is 

an additional funding request for the Batteries and Energy Storage 

Hub. 

IV. HEARING SUMMARY

During the 110th and 111th Congresses, the House Committee 

on Science and Technology held 33 hearings relevant to the activities authorized in the bill. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
73 

On May 15, 2007, the Subcommittee on Research and Science 

Education held a hearing entitled ‘‘Federal STEM Education Programs; Educators’ Perspective’’. The purpose of the hearing was to 

inform the Subcommittee of educators’ experiences working science, 

technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education programs for 

K–16 students supported by federal R & D mission agencies and 

explore whether such issues as the lack of coordination between the 

agencies, difficulty by educators in finding information about the 

programs, and the absence of robust evaluation techniques hinder 

the potential of the Federal programs. Witnesses included: (1) Dr. 

Linda Froschauer, President, National Science Teachers Association; (2) Mr. Michael Lach, Director of Mathematics and Science, 

Chicago Public Schools; (3) Dr. George D. Nelson, Director, Science, 

Technology, and Mathematics Education, Western Washington 

University; (4) Mr. Van Reiner, President, Maryland Science Center; and (5) Dr. Iris Weiss, President, Horizon Research, Inc. 

On June 6, 2007, the Subcommittee on Research and Science 

Education held a hearing entitled ‘‘Federal STEM Education Programs’’. The purpose of the hearing was to review the K–16 

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education activities of federal agencies and to explore current efforts 

for the improvement of interagency coordination and evaluation of 

programs. Witnesses included (1) Dr. Cora Marrett, Assistant Director, Directorate for Education and Human Resources, National 

Science Foundation and Co-Chair, Education and Workforce Development Subcommittee, National Science and Technology Council; 

(2) Dr. Joyce Winterton, Assistant Administrator, Office of Education, National Aeronautics and Space Administration; (3) Mr. 

William Valdez, Director, Office of Workforce Development for 

Teachers and Scientists, Office of Science, Department of Energy; 

and (4) Dr. Bruce Fuchs, Director, Office of Science Education, National Institutes of Health. 

On October 10, 2007, the Subcommittee on Research and Science 

Education held a hearing entitled ‘‘Assessment of the National 

Science Board’s Action Plan for STEM Education’’. The purpose of 

the hearing was to receive testimony on the National Science 

Board’s recommendations for bringing greater coherence to the Nation’s STEM education system, as laid out in their report, ‘‘A National Action Plan for Addressing the Critical Needs of the U.S. 

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education System.’’ Witnesses included: (1) Dr. Steven Beering, Chairman, National Science Board; (2) Ms. Judy A. Jeffrey, Director, Iowa Department of Education and Representing the Council of Chief State 

School Officers; (3) Dr. Francis (Skip) Fennell, President, National 

Council of Teachers of Mathematics and Professor of Education at 

McDaniel College; (4) Ms. Chrisanne Gayl, Director of Federal Programs, National School Boards Association; (5) Dr. Robert Semper, 

Executive Associate Director, The Exploratorium and Representing 

the Association of Science-Technology Centers; and (6) Ms. Susan 

L. Traiman, Director, Education and Workforce Policy Business 

Roundtable. 

On April 16, 2008, the Committee on Science and Technology 

held a hearing entitled ‘‘The National Nanotechnology Initiative 

Amendments Act of 2008’’. The purpose of the hearing was to review legislation that proposes changes to various aspects of the 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
74 

planning and implementation mechanisms for and to the content of 

the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). Witnesses included: 

(1) Mr. Floyd E. Kvamme, Co-Chair, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology; (2) Mr. Sean Murdock, Executive 

Director, NanoBusiness Alliance; (3) Dr. Joseph Krajcik, Associate 

Dean for Research and Professor of Education, University of Michigan; (4) Dr. Andrew Maynard, Chief Science Advisor, Project on 

Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center; (5) Dr. Raymond Davis, Manager of Toxicology, BASF Corporation on behalf 

of the American Chemistry Council; and (6) Dr. Robert R. Doering, 

Senior Fellow and Research Strategy Manager, Texas Instruments 

and on behalf of the Semiconductor Industry Association. 

On May 8, 2008, the Subcommittee on Research and Science 

Education held a hearing to receive comments on a discussion draft 

of the Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and 

Engineering Act of 2008. The Subcommittee heard from three witnesses that included: (1) Dr. Lynda T. Carlson, Director, Division 

of Science Resource Statistics, Directorate for Social, Behavioral 

and Economic Sciences, National Science Foundation; (2) Dr. Linda 

G. Blevins, Senior Technical Advisor, Office of the Deputy Director 

for Science Programs, Office of Science, Department of Energy; and 

(3) Dr. Donna K. Ginther, Associate Professor of Economics and Director of the Center for Economic and Business Analysis, Institute 

for Policy Research, University of Kansas. 

On July 31, 2008, the Committee on Science and Technology held 

a hearing entitled ‘‘Oversight of the Networking and Information 

Technology Research and Development (NITRD) Program’’ The 

purpose of the hearing was to review the multi-agency, coordinated 

Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) program and examine the program in light of the 

assessment of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and 

Technology and explore whether additional legislative adjustments 

to the program were needed. Witnesses included: (1) Dr. Chris 

Greer, Director, NITRD National Coordination Office; (2) Dr. Daniel A. Reed, Director of Scalable and Multicore Computing, Microsoft; (3) Dr. Craig Stewart, Associate Dean, Research Technologies, 

Indiana University, and representing the Coalition for Academic 

Scientific Computing; and (4) Mr. Don C. Winter, Vice President— 

Engineering and Information Technology, Phantom Works, the 

Boeing Company. 

On September 10, 2008, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a hearing entitled ‘‘The Foundation for Developing 

New Energy Technologies: Basic Energy Research in the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science.’’ The hearing examined 

the Basic Energy Sciences program in DOE’s Office of Science, with 

a focus on stewardship of the major light and neutron source facilities as well as its initiatives to advance research for specific energy 

applications. Witnesses included: (1) Dr. Patricia Dehmer, Deputy 

Director of Science for the DOE Office of Science; (2) Dr. Steven 

Dierker, Associate Laboratory Director for Light Sources at 

Brookhaven National Laboratory; (3) Dr. Ernest Hall, Chief Scientist for Chemistry Technologies and Materials Characterization 

at GE Global Research; and (4) Dr. Thomas Russell, Professor of 

Polymer Science and Engineering at the University of MassachuVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
75 

setts at Amherst and Director of its Materials Research Science 

and Engineering Center on Polymers. 

On February 26, 2009, the Subcommittee on Research and 

Science Education held a hearing entitled ‘‘Beyond the Classroom: 

Informal STEM Education’’. The purpose of the hearing was to examine the role of informal environments in promoting STEM learning, including the potential for informal STEM learning to engage 

students in math and science in ways that traditional formal learning environments cannot and ways in which informal STEM education can complement and enhance classroom STEM studies. The 

witnesses included: (1) Dr. Joan Ferrini-Mundy, Division Director, 

Division of Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings, 

Education and Human Resources Directorate, National Science 

Foundation; (2) Dr. Phillip Bell, Professor, College of Education, 

the University of Washington, Seattle; (3) Ms. Andrea Ingram, Vice 

President of Education and Guest Experiences, Museum of Science 

and Industry-Chicago; (4) Mr. Robert Lippincott, Senior Vice President for Education, the Public Broadcasting Service; and (5) Dr. 

Alejandro Grajal, Senior Vice President of Conservation, Education, 

and Training, the Chicago Zoological Society. 

On March 17, 2009, the Committee on Science and Technology 

held a hearing entitled ‘‘New Directions for Energy Research and 

Development at the U.S. Department of Energy.’’ The purpose of 

the hearing was to receive testimony from Secretary of Energy Steven Chu on the Administration’s near-term objectives and priority 

issues for the research and development (R&D) activities under the 

Offices of Science, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Fossil 

Energy, Nuclear Energy, Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, and the Loan Guarantee Program, as well as the Advanced 

Research Projects Agency—Energy. In addition, the hearing included testimony on the proposed Energy Innovation Hubs and how 

they differ from existing DOE programs. 

On April 1, 2009, the Committee on Science and Technology held 

a hearing to receive testimony on the Networking and Information 

Technology Research and Development Act of 2009. Witnesses included: (1) Dr. Chris L. Greer, Director, National Coordination Office for Networking and Information Technology Research and Development; (2) Dr. Peter Lee, Professor and Head, Computer 

Science Department, Carnegie Mellon University; (3) Dr. Armit 

Yoran, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, NetWitness Corporation; and (4) Dr. Deborah Estrin, Director, Center for Embedded Networked Sensing, University of California, Los Angeles. 

On April 22, 2009, the Committee on Science and Technology 

held a hearing entitled ‘‘Monitoring, Measurement and Verification 

of Greenhouse Gas Emissions II: The Role of Federal and Academic 

Research and Monitoring Programs.’’ The hearing examined existing and planned federal programs focused on monitoring, measuring, and verifying sources and sinks of greenhouse gases, their 

atmospheric chemistry and their impacts on Earth’s climate. Witnesses included: (1) Dr. Alexander ‘‘Sandy’’ MacDonald, Director, 

Earth Systems Research Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; (2) Dr. Beverly Law, Professor, Global 

Change Forest Science, Oregon State University and Science Chair, 

AmeriFlux Network; (3) Dr. Richard Birdsey, Project Leader, Climate, Fire, and Carbon Cycle Science, USDA Forest Service, and 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
76 

Chair, Carbon Cycle Scientific Steering Group; (4) Dr. Michael 

Freilich, Director, Earth Science Division, National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration; and (5) Ms. Dina Kruger, Director, Climate Change Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Environmental Protection Agency. 

On June 9, 2009, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 

held a hearing entitled ‘‘Environmental Research at the Department of Energy.’’ The hearing examined the Department of Energy’s stewardship of its seven National Environmental Research 

Parks, as well as other climate and environmental research programs conducted by the DOE Office of Science. Witnesses included: 

(1) Dr. Paul Hanson, Ecosystem Science Group Leader at Oak 

Ridge National Laboratory; (2) Dr. David Bader, Director of the 

Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison; (3) Dr. 

Nathan McDowell, lead researcher in the Atmospheric, Climate, 

and Environmental Dynamics Group at Los Alamos National Laboratory; and (4) Dr. Whit Gibbons, Professor Emeritus of Ecology 

at the University of Georgia and Head of the Environmental Outreach and Education program at the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory. 

On July 21, 2009, the Subcommittee on Research and Science 

Education held a hearing entitled ‘‘Encouraging the Participation of 

Female Students in STEM Fields.’’ The purpose of the hearing was 

to examine current research findings, best practices, and the role 

of the Federal agencies in increasing the interest of girls in STEM 

in primary and secondary schools, and addressing the challenges 

that deter young women from pursuing post-secondary STEM degrees. The witnesses included: (1) Dr. Alan I. Leshner, Chief Executive Officer, American Association for the Advancement of 

Science; (2) Dr. Marcia Brumit Kropf, Chief Operating Officer, 

Girls Incorporated; (3) Dr. Sandra Hanson, Professor of Sociology, 

Catholic University; (4) Ms. Barbara Bogue, Associate Professor of 

Engineering Science and Mechanics and Women in Engineering, 

Penn State College of Engineering; and (5) Ms. Cherryl Thomas, 

President, Ardmore Associates LLC. 

On July 30, 2009, the Subcommittee on Research and Science 

Education held a hearing entitled ‘‘A Systems Approach to Improving K–12 STEM Education.’’ The purpose of the hearing was to examine how the many public and private stakeholders in an urban 

K–12 system can work together to improve STEM education inside 

and outside of the classroom. The witnesses included: (1) Dr. 

Wanda Ward, Acting Assistant Director, Directorate for Education 

and Human Resources, National Science Foundation; (2) Ms. 

Maggie Daley, Chair, After School Matters; (3) Mr. Michael Lach, 

Officer of Teaching and Learning, Chicago Public Schools; (4) Dr. 

Donald Wink, Director of Undergraduate Studies, Department of 

Chemistry, and Director of Graduate Studies, Learning Sciences 

Research Institute, University of Illinois at Chicago; and (5) Ms. 

Katherine Pickus, Divisional Vice President, Global Citizenship 

and Policy, Abbott. 

On September 10, 2009, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a hearing entitled ‘‘Biological Research for Energy 

and Medical Applications at the Department of Energy Office of 

Science.’’ The hearing examined biological research activities of the 

DOE Office of Science conducted through the Biological and EnviVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
77 

ronmental Research (BER) and Nuclear Physics (NP) programs. 

Witnesses included: (1) Dr. Anna Palmisano, Director of BER; (2) 

Dr. Jay Keasling, CEO of Joint BioEnergy Institute at Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory; (3) Dr. Allison Campbell, Director of 

the WR Wiley Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory at the 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; (4) Dr. Ari Patrinos, President of Synthetic Genomics, Inc.; and (5) Dr. Jehanne Gillo, Facilities & Project Management Division Director of NP. 

On September 24, 2009, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a hearing entitled ‘‘The Potential Need for Measurement Standards to Facilitate the Research and Development of Biologic Drugs.’’ The purpose of the hearing was to examine the need 

for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to 

develop measurement standards and protocols to aid research and 

development of biologic drugs. Witnesses included: (1) Dr. Anthony 

Mire-Sluis, Executive Director, Global Product Quality and Quality 

Compliance, Amgen, Inc.; (2) Dr. Patrick Vink, Senior Vice President and Global Head of Biologics, Mylan GmbH; (3) Dr. Steven 

Kozlowski, Director, Office of Biotechnology Products, Office of 

Pharmaceutical Science, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA); and (4) Dr. Willie May, 

Director, Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory, NIST. 

On October 1, 2009, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a hearing entitled ‘‘Investigating the Nature of Matter, 

Energy, Space, and Time.’’ The hearing discussed the fundamental 

physics research activities of the DOE Office of Science conducted 

through the High Energy Physics (HEP) and Nuclear Physics (NP) 

programs and examined how these areas of study relate to the 

work of other DOE program offices and federal agencies. 

On October 8, 2009, the Subcommittee on Research and Science 

Education held a hearing entitled ‘‘Investing in High-Risk, HighReward Research.’’ The purpose of the hearing was to examine 

mechanisms for funding high-risk, potentially high-reward research, and the appropriate role of the Federal government in supporting such research. Witnesses included: (1) Dr. Neal F. Lane, 

Malcolm Gillis University Professor and Senior Fellow, James A. 

Baker III Institute for Public Policy, Rice University; (2) Dr. James 

P. Collins, Assistant Director for Biological Sciences, National 

Science Foundation; (3) Dr. Richard D. McCullough, Professor of 

Chemistry and Vice President of Research, Carnegie Mellon University; and (4) Dr. Gerald M. Rubin, Vice President and Director, 

Janelia Farm Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute. 

On October 22, 2009, the Subcommittee on Research and Science 

Education held a hearing entitled ‘‘Engineering in K–12 Education.’’ The purpose of the hearing was to examine the potential 

benefits of, challenges to, and current models for incorporating engineering education at the K–12 level. Witnesses included: (1) Dr. 

Linda Katehi, Chair, National Academy of Engineering Committee 

on K–12 Engineering Education, and Chancellor, University of 

California, Davis; (2) Dr. Thomas Peterson, Assistant Director for 

Engineering, National Science Foundation; (3) Dr. Ioannis 

Miaoulis, President and Director, Museum of Science, Boston and 

Founder, National Center for Technological Literacy; (4) Dr. 

Darryll Pines, Dean and Nariman Farvardin Professor of EngineerVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
78 

ing, A. James Clark School of Engineering, University of Maryland, 

College Park; and (5) Mr. Rick Sandlin, Principal, Martha and Josh 

Morriss Mathematics and Engineering Elementary School, Texarkana, Texas. 

On October 29, 2009, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a hearing entitled ‘‘The Next Generation of Fusion Energy Research.’’ The hearing examined research activities on fusion 

energy conducted within the Office of Science’s Fusion Energy 

Sciences (FES) program and DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), as well as the possibilities for international 

partnerships. Witnesses included: (1) Dr. Edmund Synakowski, Director of FES; (2) Dr. Stewart Prager, Director of the Princeton 

Plasma Physics Laboratory and former Chair of DOE’s Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee; (3) Dr. Thom Mason, Director 

of Oak Ridge National Laboratory; and (4) Dr. Riccardo Betti, Assistant Director of the University of Rochester’s Laboratory for 

Laser Energetics. 

On January 20, 2010, the Committee on Science and Technology 

held a hearing entitled ‘‘America COMPETES: Big Picture Perspectives on the Need for Innovation, Investments in R & D and a 

Commitment to STEM Education.’’ The purpose of the hearing was 

to examine the role that science and technology play in promoting 

economic security and maintaining U.S. competitiveness and to understand the perspective of the business community on the reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act. Witnesses included: (1) 

Mr. John Castellani, President, Business Roundtable; (2) Mr. Tom 

Donohue, President, U.S. Chamber of Commerce; (3) Governor 

John Engler, President, National Association of Manufacturers; 

and (4) Ms. Deborah Wince-Smith, President and CEO, Council on 

Competitiveness. 

On January 21, 2010, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a hearing entitled ‘‘Commerce Department Programs to 

Support Job Creation and Innovation at Small and Medium-Sized 

Manufacturers.’’ The purpose of the hearing was to learn about the 

challenges faced by small and medium-sized manufacturers, as well 

as entrepreneurs marketing new technology, and to learn about Department of Commerce initiatives to address these challenges and 

examine how those programs can be made most effective for these 

enterprises. Witnesses included: (1) The Honorable Dennis F. Hightower, Deputy Secretary of Commerce, U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC); (2) Ms. Jennifer Owens, Vice President, Ann Arbor 

Spark; (3) Ms. RoseAnn B. Rosenthal, President and CEO, Ben 

Franklin Technology Partners of Southeastern Pennsylvania; and 

(4) Mr. Michael Coast, President, Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center. 

On January 27, 2010, the Committee on Science and Technology 

held a hearing entitled ‘‘The Advanced Research Projects Agency— 

Energy (ARPA–E): Assessing the Agency’s Progress and Promise in 

Transforming the U.S. Energy Innovation System.’’ The purpose of 

the hearing was to review progress made on establishing ARPA– 

E and discuss what differentiates ARPA–E from other DOE programs, hear accounts of experiences with the agency’s first funding 

opportunities, examine the agency’s plans and goals for the coming 

years, and discuss ways in which ARPA–E may be improved 

through reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act. The witVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
79 

nesses included: (1) Dr. Arun Majumdar, Director of ARPA–E; (2) 

Dr. Charles Vest, President of the National Academy of Engineering; (3) Dr. Anthony Atti, President and CEO of Phononic Devices, 

Inc.; and (4) Dr. John Pierce, Vice President of Technology at DuPont Applied BioSciences. 

On February 4, 2010, the Subcommittee on Research and Science 

Education held a hearing entitled ‘‘Strengthening Undergraduate 

and Graduate STEM Education.’’ The purpose of the hearing was 

to examine STEM education in undergraduate and graduate institutions, including the role of the NSF in strengthening post-secondary STEM education. The witnesses included: (1) Dr. Joan 

Ferrini-Mundy, Acting Assistant Director for Education and 

Human Resources, National Science Foundation; (2) Mr. Rick Stephens, Senior Vice President for Resources and Administration, 

Boeing Company; (3) Dr. Noah Finkelstein, Associate Professor of 

Physics, University of Colorado at Boulder; (4) Dr. Karen 

Klomparens, Associate Provost and Dean for Graduate Education, 

Michigan State University; and (5) Dr. Robert Mathieu, Professor 

and Chair of Astronomy, University of Wisconsin-Madison. 

On February 23, 2010, the Subcommittee on Research and 

Science Education held a hearing entitled ‘‘The State of Research 

Infrastructure at U.S. Universities.’’ The purpose of the hearing 

was to examine the research and research training infrastructure 

of our universities and colleges, including research facilities, and 

cyberinfrastructure capabilities, the capacity of the research infrastructure to meet the needs of U.S. scientists and engineers now 

and in the future, and the appropriate role of the Federal government in sustaining such infrastructure. Witnesses included: (1) Dr. 

Leslie Tolbert, Vice President for Research, Graduate Studies and 

Economic Development, University of Arizona; (2) Mr. Albert 

Horvath, Senior Vice President for Finance and Business, Pennsylvania State University; (3) Dr. John R. Raymond, Vice President 

for Academic Affairs and Provost, Medical University of South 

Carolina, and Chair, State of South Carolina EPSCoR Committee; 

and (4) Dr. Thom Dunning, Director of the National Center for 

Supercomputing Applications, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign. 

On February 24, 2010, the Committee on Science and Technology 

held a hearing entitled ‘‘The Administration’s FY 2011 Research 

and Development Budget Proposal.’’ The purpose of the hearing 

was to receive testimony from Dr. John Holdren, Assistant to the 

President for Science and Technology and Director of the Office of 

Science and Technology Policy on the Administration’s proposed fiscal year 2011 funding for Federal research, development, demonstration, and commercial application programs and to examine 

the status of program authorized in the America COMPETES Act. 

Dr. Holdren also discussed Energy Innovation Hubs. 

On February 24, 2010, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a hearing entitled ‘‘How Can NIST Better Serve the 

Needs of the Biomedical Research Community in the 21st Century?’’ The purpose of the hearing was to examine ways in which 

NIST could better serve the needs of the biomedical community. 

The witnesses included: (1) Dr. Thomas M. Baer, Executive Director, Stanford Photonics Research Center, Ginzton Lab; (2) Sharon 

F. Terry, MA, President and CEO, Genetic Alliance; and (3) Dr. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
80 

Daniel Sullivan, Professor and Vice Chair, Research in Radiology, 

Duke University Medical Center and Science Advisor, Radiologic 

Society of North America. 

On March 3, 2010, the Committee on Science and Technology 

held a hearing entitled ‘‘The Department of Energy Fiscal Year 

2011 Research and Development Budget Proposal.’’ The purpose of 

the hearing was to receive testimony from Secretary of Energy Steven Chu on the President’s Fiscal Year 2011 budget request for energy research and technology development programs at DOE, including activities under the Offices of Science, Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Fossil Energy, Nuclear Energy, Electricity 

Delivery and Energy Reliability, the Advanced Research Projects 

Agency—Energy, and the Loan Guarantee Program. 

On March 4, 2010, the Committee on Science and Technology 

held a hearing entitled ‘‘Reform in K–12 STEM Education.’’ The 

purpose of the hearing was to examine the role of Federal agencies 

in supporting improvements in K–12 STEM education and promoting STEM literacy in preparation for the reauthorization of the 

America COMPETES Act. The witnesses included: (1) Dr. Jim Simons, Founder and Chairman, Math for America; (2) Ms. Ellen 

Futter, President, American Museum of Natural History; (3) Dr. 

Gordon Gee, President, The Ohio State University; and (4) Dr. Jeffrey Wadsworth, President and CEO, Batelle Memorial Institute. 

On March 10, 2010, the Subcommittee on Research and Science 

Education held a hearing entitled ‘‘The National Science Foundation’s FY 2011 Budget Request.’’ The purpose of the hearing was 

to examine the priorities in the National Science Foundation’s FY 

2011 budget request, and to examine core activities, initiatives, and 

policy directions for research, infrastructure, education and workforce training at the Foundation. The witnesses included Dr. Arden 

Bement, Director of the National Science Foundation, and Dr. Steven Beering, Chair of the National Science Board. 

On March 16, 2010, the Subcommittee on Research and Science 

Education held a hearing entitled ‘‘Broadening Participation in 

STEM.’’ The purpose of the hearing was to examine institutional 

and cultural barriers to broadening the participation of students 

from underrepresented groups pursuing degrees in STEM, efforts 

to overcome these barriers, and the role that Federal agencies can 

play in supporting these efforts. The witnesses included: (1) Dr. 

Shirley M. Malcom, Head of the Directorate for Education and 

Human Resources Programs, American Association for the Advancement of Science; (2) Dr. Alicia C. Dowd, Associate Professor 

of Higher Education, University of Southern California; (3) Dr. 

Keivan Stassun, Associate Professor of Physics & Astronomy, Vanderbilt University; (4) Dr. David Yarlott, President of Little Big 

Horn College; and (5) Ms. Elaine Craft, Director of the South Carolina Advanced Technological Education National Resource Center, 

Florence-Darlington Technical College. 

On March 17, 2010, the Committee on Science and Technology 

held a hearing entitled ‘‘The Future of Manufacturing: What is the 

Role of the Federal Government in Supporting Innovation by U.S. 

Manufacturers?’’ The hearing examined the need for U.S. manufacturers to adopt innovative technologies and processes in order to 

remain globally competitive, and sought to determine the appropriate role for the Federal Government in supporting efforts by 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
81 

U.S. manufacturers to innovate. Witnesses included: (1) Dr. Susan 

Smyth, Director of Manufacturing, GM R & D, and Chief Scientist 

for Manufacturing, General Motors Company; (2) Dr. Len Sauers, 

Vice President, Global Sustainability, Procter & Gamble; (3) Mr. 

Debtosh Chakrabarti, President and Chief Operating Officer, PMC 

Group Inc., (4) Dr. Mark Tuominen, Director, National Nanomanufacturing Network; and (5) Mr. Wayne Crews, Vice President for 

Policy and Director of Technology Studies, Competitive Enterprise 

Institute. 

On March 23, 2010, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a hearing entitled ‘‘NIST Structure and Authorities, Its 

Role in Standards, and Federal Agency Coordination on Technical 

Standards.’’ The purpose of the hearing was to review the proposed 

re-alignment of operational units at NIST, examine the current role 

that NIST plays in technical standards, and examine the need for 

federal agencies’ and departments’ coordination on technical standards. The witnesses included: (1) The Honorable Patrick Gallagher, 

Director, NIST; (2) Dr. James Serum, President, Scitek Ventures 

LLC, and past Chairman, NIST Visiting Committee on Advanced 

Technology (VCAT); (3) Mr. Craig Shank, General Manager, Interoperability at Microsoft; (4) Mr. Andrew Updegrove, Partner, 

Gesmer Updegrove LLC; and (5) Mr. Philip Wennblom, Director of 

Standards, Intel Corporation. 

V. COMMITTEE ACTIONS

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT 

On March 25, 2010, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment met to consider a Committee Print. The Committee Print was 

comprised of H.R. 4905, the Department of Energy Office of Science 

Authorization Act of 2010 (introduced by Representative Brian 

Baird on March 22, 2010), H.R. 4906, the ARPA–E Reauthorization 

Act of 2010 (introduced by Chairman Bart Gordon on March 22, 

2010), and H.R. 4907, the Energy Innovation Hubs Authorization 

Act of 2010 (introduced by Representative Russ Carnahan on 

March 22, 2010). The Subcommittee considered the following 

amendments: 

1. Mr. Baird offered a manager’s amendment to make several 

technical and clarifying changes to the print. The amendment was 

agreed to by voice vote. 

2. Mr. Ehlers offered an amendment to strike a section and replace it with a new section detailing the mission and duties of the 

Office of Science. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote. 

3. Mr. Ehlers offered an amendment to the authorization of Energy Frontier Research Centers to state that they will ‘‘conduct 

fundamental and use-inspired energy research to accelerate scientific breakthroughs related to needs identified’’ in certain reports. 

The amendment was agreed to by voice vote. 

4. Mr. Lipinski offered an amendment directing the Office of 

Science to conduct outreach to increase the use of high-performance 

computer modeling and simulation capabilities by industry, including manufacturers. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote. 

5. Mr. Garamendi offered an amendment to require that, after 

the release of a National Academies report on fusion energy research, the Secretary submit a plan to Congress describing the DeVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
82 

partment’s plan to incorporate any relevant recommendations from 

that report. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote. 

6. Mr. Lipinski offered an amendment providing additional direction to the Office of Science Laboratories Infrastructure program’s 

annual reporting requirements. The amendment was agreed to by 

voice vote. 

7. Mr. Ehlers offered an amendment to strike the authorization 

levels specified for Basic Energy Sciences activities, Biological and 

Environmental Research activities, and Advanced Scientific Computing Research activities. The amendment was defeated by recorded vote (6–12). 

8. Mrs. Biggert offered an amendment to lower the Office of 

Science authorization levels for each of the fiscal years 2011 

through 2015. The amendment was withdrawn. 

9. Mr. Diaz-Balart offered an amendment to all Titles of the 

Committee Print by striking the authorization of appropriations for 

fiscal years 2014 and 2015. The amendment was defeated by voice 

vote. 

10. Mr. Bartlett offered an amendment requiring the ARPA–E 

Director to ensure that ‘‘at least 30 percent of applicants who are 

selected are a small business or partner with a small business.’’ 

The amendment was withdrawn. 

11. Mr. Luja ́n offered an amendment to increase the amount of 

appropriated funds that shall be used for technology transfer and 

outreach activities from 2.5 percent to 5 percent. The amendment 

was agreed to by voice vote. 

12. Mr. Inglis offered an amendment limiting the amount that may be appropriated to ARPA–E for any fiscal year to $300,000,000 

unless the amount appropriated for that year to the Office of 

Science exceeds the amount appropriated for the previous fiscal 

year, adjusted for inflation. The amendment was defeated by voice 

vote. 

13. Ms. Johnson offered an amendment to require that for at 

least 3 awards to consortia for Energy Innovation Hubs, the Secretary shall give special considerations to applications in which 1 

or more of the institutions are 1890 Land Grant Institutions, Predominantly Black Institutions, Tribal Colleges or Universities, or 

Hispanic Serving Institutions. The amendment was withdrawn. 

Mr. Baird moved that the Subcommittee favorably report the 

Committee Print, as amended, to the Full Committee. The motion 

was agreed to by voice vote. 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION 

On April 14, 2010, the Subcommittee on Research and Science 

Education met to consider a Committee Print. The Committee 

Print was based on the text of H.R. 4997, the National Science 

Foundation Authorization Act of 2010, which was introduced by 

Representative Daniel Lipinski on April 13, 2010. The Subcommittee considered the following amendments: 

1. Mr. Lipinski offered a manager’s amendment to make several 

technical and clarifying changes to the bill, and to add four new 

sections to the bill to: establish the National Center for Science and 

Engineering Statistics at the Foundation; authorize a program of 

grants to support partnerships between institutions of higher education and private sector entities that promote innovation and inVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
83 

crease the economic and social impact of research; and authorize 

the Director to award grants to support reform of undergraduate 

and graduate STEM education at institutions of higher education. 

The amendment was agreed to by voice vote. 

2. Mr. Lipinski offered an amendment to add a new section to 

Title II of the bill authorizing a pilot program to award innovation 

inducement cash prizes in any area of research supported by the 

Foundation. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote. 

3. Mr. Neugebauer offered an amendment to section 102 of the 

bill to strike all authorizations of appropriations for the Foundation 

for fiscal years 2014 and 2015. The amendment was defeated by recorded vote (4–7). 

4. Mr. Neugebauer offered an amendment to section 203 of the 

bill to strike the list of manufacturing research areas allowed 

under this section. The amendment was defeated by voice vote. 

5. Mr. Neugebauer offered an amendment to section 303 of the 

bill to strike the subsection that reduces the institutional matching 

requirement for the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program 

from 50 percent to 30 percent. The amendment was defeated by 

voice vote. 

6. Ms. Johnson offered an amendment to add a new section to 

Title III of the bill requiring NSF to continue supporting the Historically Black Colleges and Universities-Undergraduate Program, 

the Tribal Colleges and Universities Program, and the Louis Stokes 

Alliances for Minority Participation program, as separate programs 

through September 30, 2011 and to develop and submit a plan to 

Congress for approval prior to any consolidation or realignment of 

those programs. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote. 

7. Ms. Fudge offered an amendment to add a new section to Title 

III of the bill requiring the Director of NSF and the Secretary of 

Education to collaborate in identifying, prioritizing, and developing 

strategies to address grand challenges in pre-K–12 STEM research 

and development. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote. 

8. Mr. Tonko offered an amendment to add a new section to Title 

III of the bill requiring the Director to award grants to institutions 

of higher education, nonprofit organizations, or consortia thereof, to 

provide research experiences for 10 or more undergraduate STEM 

students. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote. 

Mr. Lipinski moved that the Subcommittee favorably report the 

Committee print, as amended, to the full Committee. The motion 

was agreed to by voice vote. 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION 

On April 21, 2010, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation met to consider a Committee Print. The Committee Print was 

based on the text of H.R. 5794, the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology Authorization Act of 2010, introduced by Representative David Wu on April 20, 2010. The Subcommittee considered the following amendments: 

1. Mr. Wu offered a manager’s amendment which removed the 

duties of the Under Secretary for Standards and Technology as outlined in the Committee Print. The amendment also made the adjustment in the federal share of the MEP Centers to be a temporary adjustment for fiscal years 2011 through 2015 and requires 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
84 

a report from the Secretary on the cost-share structure after FY 

2015. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote. 

2. Ms. Edwards amended the Committee Print by requiring the 

Director to give extra consideration to underrepresented minorities 

when evaluating applications for graduate, undergraduate, and 

postdoctoral fellowships. Her amendment also required the Director 

to give priority to applications from teachers from high-need 

schools for the NIST teacher science and technology enhancement 

program. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote. 

3. Mr. Broun offered an amendment to reduce the number of authorization years for NIST from five to three years. The amendment was defeated by recorded vote (5–7). 

4. Mr. Smith offered an amendment to clarify that the use of cybersecurity standards and guidelines developed by NIST for industry and public would not be mandatory. The amendment was 

agreed to by voice vote. 

5. Mr. Luja ́n offered an amendment that would require the Director to give special consideration to 1890 Institutions, Predominantly Black Institutions, Tribal Colleges and Universities, and 

Hispanic-serving institutions, when establishing university research centers under the bioscience section of the Committee Print. 

The amendment was agreed to by voice vote. 

Mr. Wu moved that the Subcommittee favorably report the Committee Print, as amended, to the Full Committee. The motion was 

agreed to by voice vote. 

FULL COMMITTEE 

On April 22, 2010, Chairman Bart Gordon introduced H.R. 5116, 

the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. The bill was 

based in part on the Committee Prints reported to the Full Committee by the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, and the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation. 

On April 28, 2010, the Committee on Science and Technology 

met to consider H.R. 5116, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. The Committee agreed by unanimous consent to 

consider an Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute offered by 

Chairman Bart Gordon as original text for purposes of amendment. 

The Committee considered the following amendments: 

1. Chairman Gordon offered a manager’s amendment that made 

several technical and clarifying changes and amended the authorizations of appropriations in Sections 212, 402, and 611. The 

amendment was agreed to by voice vote. 

2. Mr. Broun offered an amendment to the manager’s amendment to modify the authorizations of appropriations. The amendment was defeated by recorded vote (11–24). 

3. Mr. Diaz-Balart offered an amendment to the manager’s 

amendment to modify the authorizations of appropriations. The 

amendment was defeated by recorded vote (11–25). 

4. Mr. Diaz-Balart offered an amendment to the manager’s 

amendment to strike all authorizations of appropriations after Fiscal Year 2013 for NSF, NIST, Office of Science, and ARPA–E. The 

amendment was defeated by voice vote. 

5. Mr. Rohrabacher offered an amendment to the manager’s 

amendment to strike the authorizations of appropriations for the 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
85 

Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy after Fiscal Year 

2013. The amendment was defeated by voice vote. 

6. Mr. Rohrabacher offered an amendment to the manager’s 

amendment to strike the authorization of appropriations for the 

Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy after Fiscal Year 

2015. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote. 

7. Ms. Biggert offered an amendment to the manager’s amendment to modify the authorization of appropriations for the Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy. The amendment was 

defeated by voice vote. 

8. Ms. Johnson offered an amendment to insert a new section entitled ‘‘Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and 

Engineering’’ and a new section entitled ‘‘Collection of Data on Demographics of Faculty.’’ The amendment was agreed to by voice 

vote. 

9. Ms. Dahlkemper offered an amendment to Section 223 (‘‘National Science Foundation Manufacturing Research’’) to require the 

National Science Foundation to award grants to strengthen technical education and training in advanced manufacturing, including 

through the Foundation’s Advanced Technological Education program. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote. 

10. Mr. Inglis offered an amendment to Section 228 (‘‘Prize 

Awards’’) to prohibit the use of Federal funds to engage in the research for which the prize is being awarded. The amendment was 

agreed to by voice vote. 

11. Ranking Member Hall offered an amendment to insert a new 

section to repeal the Academic Research Facilities Modernization 

program at the National Science Foundation. The amendment was 

defeated by voice vote. 

12. Mr. Neugebauer offered an amendment to Section 243 (‘‘Robert Noyce teacher scholarships program’’) to strike amendments to 

Section 10A of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act 

of 2002. The amendment was withdrawn. 

13. Mr. Neugebauer offered an amendment to Section 243 (‘‘Robert Noyce teacher scholarships program’’) to prohibit the use of 

funds by an institution of higher education to engage in capacity 

building activities. The amendment was withdrawn. 

14. Mr. Neugebauer offered an amendment to Section 243 (‘‘Robert Noyce teacher Scholarships Program’’) to require that the 

matching requirement be provided in cash. The amendment was 

agreed to by voice vote. 

15. Mr. Ehlers offered an amendment to Section 248 (‘‘Transforming Undergraduate Education in STEM’’) to add a provision 

stating that uses of funds under the section may include support 

for initiatives that advance integration of global challenges such as 

sustainability into disciplinary and interdisciplinary STEM education. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote. 

16. Mr. Wilson offered an amendment to Section 251 (‘‘Grand 

Challenges in Education Research’’) to specify that students in 

rural schools should be included in the diverse learning populations 

to be considered in developing research grand challenges. The 

amendment was agreed to by voice vote. 

17. Mr. Bartlett offered an amendment to Section 253 (‘‘Laboratory Science Pilot Program’’) to repeal subparagraphs (B), (C), (D), 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
86 

(E), and (F) of Section 8(8) of the National Science Foundation Act 

of 2002. The amendment was withdrawn. 

18. Mr. Wu offered an amendment to insert a new section authorizing the National Science Foundation to award grants for the 

purpose of providing integrated internship experiences for undergraduate students that connect private sector internship experiences with the students’ STEM coursework. The amendment was 

agreed to by voice vote. 

19. Mr. Bartlett offered an amendment to Mr. Wu’s amendment 

to require a 50 percent non-Federal cost share from partnerships 

established or expanded and to restrict the use of Federal funds 

provided under certain circumstances. The amendment was agreed 

to by voice vote. 

20. Mr. Lujan offered an amendment to insert a new section to 

require the Director of the National Science Foundation to continue 

to support the Tribal Colleges and Universities program, to specify 

certain activities that grants awarded under the program shall support, and to permit funding to be used for instrumentation. The 

amendment was agreed to by voice vote. 

21. Mr. Diaz-Balart offered an amendment to strike all authorizations of appropriations for fiscal years after fiscal year 2013 for 

the following sections: 303(c) (‘‘Energy Applied Science Talent Expansion Program for Institutions of Higher Education’’); Section 

502 (‘‘Federal Loan Guarantees for Innovative Technologies in 

Manufacturing’’); Section 503 (‘‘Regional Innovation Program’’); and 

Section 632 (‘‘Energy Innovation Hubs’’). The amendment was 

withdrawn. 

22. Mr. McCaul offered an amendment to insert a new section 

authorizing the Secretary of Energy to provide funds to the National Science Foundation for the Integrative Graduate Education 

and Research Traineeship program and to contribute funds to curriculum development activities at the National Science Foundation 

for the purpose of improving undergraduate and graduate interdisciplinary engineering and architecture education related to design and construction of high performance buildings. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote. 

23. Ranking Member Hall offered an amendment to Section 404 

(‘‘Reorganization of NIST Laboratories’’) to modify the mission of 

the Engineering Laboratory. The amendment was agreed to by 

voice vote. 

24. Mr. Broun offered an amendment to strike Title V (‘‘Innovation’’). The amendment was defeated by recorded vote (8–25). 

25. Mr. Ehlers offered an amendment to Section 502 (‘‘Federal 

Loan Guarantees for Innovative Technologies in Manufacturing’’) 

by adding to the list of items that the Secretary of Commerce must 

address in final regulations for the program criteria that the Secretary shall use to determine whether a borrower demonstrates 

that a market exists for the innovative technology product, or the 

integral component of such product, to be manufactured. The 

amendment was agreed to by voice vote. 

26. Mr. Bartlett offered an amendment to Section 502 (‘‘Federal 

Loan Guarantees for Innovative Technologies in Manufacturing’’) to 

require that the Secretary of Commerce promulgate regulations 

and policies to carry out the manufacturing loan guarantee proVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
87 

gram in accordance with OMB Circular A–129. The amendment 

was agreed to by voice vote. 

27. Mr. Bilbray offered an amendment to Section 502 (‘‘Federal 

Loan Guarantees for Innovative Technologies in Manufacturing’’) to 

state that it is the Sense of Congress that no loan guarantee shall 

be made under the program unless the borrower agrees to use a 

federally-approved electronic employment verification system to 

verify employment eligibility. The amendment was agreed to by 

voice vote. 

28. Mr. Lipinski offered an amendment to Section 603 (‘‘Mission 

of the Office of Science’’) to require the Director to develop a plan 

to increase the percentage of domestically sourced hardware for 

projects of Office of Science. The amendment was agreed to by 

voice vote. 

29. Ms. Biggert offered an amendment to Section 603 (‘‘Mission 

of the Office of Science’’) to require that, as part of the President’s 

annual budget request, the Secretary include a detailed summary 

of the degree to which current research activities are competitive 

and merit-reviewed. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote. 

30. Mr. Inglis offered an amendment to Section 605 (‘‘Biological 

and Environmental Research Program’’) to include hydrogen among 

the targeted research, development, and demonstration biological 

systems science activities. The amendment was agreed to by voice 

vote. 

31. Mr. Smith offered an amendment to Section 605 (‘‘Biological 

and Environmental Research Program’’) to include requirements 

for a research plan for Biological System Science activities. The 

amendment was agreed to by voice vote. 

32. Mr. Olson offered an amendment to strike Subsection 605(c) 

(‘‘Climate and Environmental Sciences Activities’’). The amendment 

was defeated by voice vote. 

33. Mr. Neugebauer offered an amendment to Section 622 

(‘‘ARPA–E Amendments’’) to require the Director to ensure that 

projects with a high potential to result in technology advances that 

enable reductions in imports of energy from foreign sources receive 

the highest priority consideration. The amendment was defeated by 

voice vote. 

34. Mr. Smith offered an amendment to Section 622 (‘‘ARPA–E 

Amendments’’) to require applicants to disclose prior efforts and investments in proposed projects and to justify funding projects with 

prior industry support. The amendment was agreed to by voice 

vote. 

35. Mr. Olson offered an amendment to Section 622(4), in the 

proposed subsection (f), by striking ‘‘shall’’ and inserting ‘‘may’’, and 

to Section 622(5) by striking subparagraph (F) thereby restoring 

certain existing statutory limitations on staffing at ARPA–E. The 

amendment was withdrawn. 

36. Ms. Biggert offered an amendment to Section 632 (‘‘Energy 

Innovation Hubs’’) by striking the paragraph entitled ‘‘TestBed and 

Renovation Exception’’. The amendment was withdrawn. 

37. Ms. Johnson offered an amendment to Section 632 (‘‘Energy 

Innovation Hubs’’) to direct the Secretary to give priority consideration to applications in which 1 or more of the institutions under 

subsection (b)(1)(A) are 1890 Land Grant Institutions, Predominately Black Institutions, Tribal Colleges or Universities, or HisVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
88 

panic Serving Institutions. The amendment was agreed to by voice 

vote. 

38. Ranking Member Hall offered an amendment to Section 632 

(‘‘Energy Innovation Hubs’’) to expand the definition of ‘‘advanced 

energy technologies’’ to include technologies to enable expanded 

supply and production of conventional domestic sources of energy 

such as coal, oil and natural gas. The amendment was agreed to 

by voice vote. 

39. Mr. Peters offered an amendment to Section 632 (‘‘Energy Innovation Hubs’’) by adding to the list of definitions of Advanced Energy Technologies innovative technology ‘‘that enables advanced vehicles, vehicle components, and related technologies that result in 

significant energy savings’’. The amendment was agreed to by voice 

vote. 

40. Ms. Biggert offered an amendment to Section 632 (‘‘Energy 

Innovation Hubs’’) to insert ‘‘including the Department of Energy 

Federally Funded Research and Development Centers’’ after ‘‘Federal entity.’’ The amendment was agreed to by voice vote. 

41. Mr. Lujan offered an amendment to Title VI (‘‘Department of 

Energy’’) to add a new subtitle entitled ‘‘Cooperative Research and 

Development Fund’’ and require the Secretary to make funds available to the Department of Energy National Laboratories for the 

Federal share of cooperative research and development agreements. 

The amendment was agreed to by voice vote. 

42. Ms. Biggert offered an amendment to Mr. Lujan’s amendment to insert the requirement that no funds allocated for this section shall come from funds allocated for the Office of Science. The 

amendment was agreed to by voice vote. 

43. Mr. Bartlett offered an amendment to add a new title to the 

bill expressing a Sense of Congress that programs that correspond 

to the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences’ 2005 

report entitled ‘‘Rising Above the Gathering Storm’’ remain critical 

to maintaining long-term United States economic competitiveness 

and shall receive priority funding. The amendment was agreed to 

by voice vote. 

44. Mr. Broun offered an amendment to add a new title which 

states that none of the funds authorized to be appropriated may be 

used to lobby any person or entity. The amendment was withdrawn. 

45. Ranking Member Hall offered an amendment to add a new 

title to the bill to state that institutions of higher education chartered to serve large numbers of students with disabilities and those 

with programs serving or those serving disabled veterans shall receive special consideration and have a designation consistent with 

the designation for other institutions that serve populations underrepresented in STEM. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote. 

46. Ranking Member Hall offered an amendment to add a new 

title to the bill to state that, in awarding scholarships and fellowships under the bill, an institution of higher education shall give 

preference to applications from veterans and service members. The 

amendment was agreed to by voice vote. 

47. Mr. Neugebauer offered an amendment to add a new title to 

the bill to state that no funds authorized to be appropriated in Section 212, Section 303, Section 402, Section 502, Section 503, Section 

611, Section 622, and Section 632 are authorized to be appropriated 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
89 

that exceed authorizations for such prupsoes for Fiscal Year 2010 

before the end of the first fiscal year for which the Director of the 

Congressional Budget Office certifies to the Congress in writing 

that the Federal Government does not have a budget deficit. The 

amendment was defeated by recorded vote (8–23). 

48. Mr. Neugebauer offered an amendment to add a new title to 

change the effective date of the Act to the first January 1 occuring 

after the date of enactment and after the conclusion of a fiscal year 

in which the Federal Government did not have a budget deficit. 

The amendment was withdrawn. 

49. Mr. Rohrabacher offered an amendment to add a new title to 

the bill which prohibits the use of funds authorized in the bill for 

projects unless all persons receiving funds are United States citizens and all entities receiving funds are headquartered in the 

United States. The amendment was defeated by voice vote. 

50. Mr. Rohrabacher offered an amendment to add a new title to 

the bill which prohibits the use of funds authorized in the bill for 

research and development unless all entities involved in such research and development agree not to use any developed and related 

technologies for manufacturing outside of the United States. The 

amendment was defeated by voice vote. 

51. Mr. Rohrabacher offered an amendment to add a new title to 

the bill which prohibits funding to any person or entity found 

guilty of infringing on the patent rights of any other person or entity. The amendment was withdrawn. 

52. Mr. Rohrabacher offered an amendment to add a new title to 

the bill which states that intellectual property rights from technologies developed using funds authorized in the bill shall be apportioned to the granting agency in direct proportion to the funds 

granted to the total project cost. The amendment was defeated by 

recorded vote (12–22). 

53. Mr. Broun offered an amendment to strike Section 228 

(‘‘Prize Awards’’), Section 407 (‘‘Bioscience Research Program’’), 

Section 502 (‘‘Federal Loan Guarantees for Innovative Technologies 

in Manufacturing’’), Section 503 (‘‘Regional Innovation Program’’), 

Subtitle C of Title VI (‘‘Energy Innovation Hubs’’), and Subsections 

(b) (‘‘Innovative Services Initiative’’) and (c) (‘‘Reports’’) in Section 

406 (‘‘Manufacturing Extension Partnership’’). The amendment was 

defeated by recorded vote ( 9–25). 

54. Mr. Bilbray and Mr. Garamendi offered an amendment to 

Section 607 (‘‘Fusion Energy Research Program’’) to require that 

the Director carry out activities to develop technologies necessary 

to enable reliable, sustainable, safe, and economically competitive 

operation of a commercial fusion power plant. The amendment was 

agreed to by voice vote. 

55. Mr. Bartlett offered an amendment to Subsection 622(k) 

(‘‘Events’’) to direct that funding for activities described in paragraph (1) shall be provided as part of the technology transfer and 

outreach activities authorized under subsection (o)(4)(B). The 

amendment was agreed to by voice vote. 

Chairman Gordon moved that the Committee favorably report 

the H.R. 5116, as amended, to the House. The motion was agreed 

to by recorded vote (29–8). 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
90 

VI. SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE BILL

Title I makes amendments to the National Nanotechnology program and the National Information Technology Research and Development program and requires the Director of the Office of 

Science and Technology to develop a policy and clearinghouse for 

federal scientific collections. It also establishes an interagency committee under the National Science and Technology Council to coordinate manufacturing-related research and development and establishes an interagency working group focused on access to and 

stewardship of the results of federally funded research. In addition, 

it authorizes a program of workshops, the collection of data, and 

the development of uniform policies related to gender bias in academic science and engineering. 

Title II authorizes funding for the National Science Foundation, 

makes administrative amendments relating to the National Science 

Board, includes provisions relating to the Foundation’s broader impacts review criterion, establishes the National Center for Science 

and Engineering Statistics, and requires the Director to report data 

on the demographics of STEM faculty at institutions of higher education. Title II also requires support for high-risk, high-reward research and authorizes programs for interdisciplinary research collaborations, manufacturing research and education, partnerships 

between institutions of higher education and private sector entities, 

and innovation inducement cash prizes. Title II includes provisions 

to strengthen institutional research partnerships and requires a report on mid-scale research instrumentation. In addition, Title II includes restrictions on funding for the Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship Program, establishes postdoctoral 

fellowship programs (including one in STEM education), makes 

changes to the match requirement under the Robert Noyce Teacher 

Scholarship program, includes provisions relating to institutions of 

higher education chartered to serve students with disabilities, authorizes grants for institutional integration, requires education and 

training on effective tools to increase participation in STEM by 

underrepresented groups, establishes grant programs to reform undergraduate and graduate STEM education, and prohibits consolidation of the Historically Black Colleges and Universities Undergraduate Program, the Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation program, and the Tribal Colleges and Universities Program. 

Title II requires the development of strategies to address grand 

challenges in research and development for K–12 STEM education, 

provides for grants for research experiences for undergraduate students, extends the laboratory science pilot program, authorizes 

grants for private sector internship experiences for undergraduate 

students, and authorizes grants to tribal colleges and universities 

to enhance STEM education. 

Title III establishes an interagency committee to coordinate Federal STEM education programs, creates an advisory committee on 

STEM education, clarifies the role of the Department of Energy relating to STEM education, and authorizes the Secretary of Energy 

to contribute funds to National Science Foundation programs for 

activities related to the design and construction of high performance buildings. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
91 

Title IV authorizes funding for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), creates a new position of Under Secretary of Standards and Technology at the Department of Commerce, reorganizes the operational units at NIST, and assigns the 

Director of NIST responsibilities relating to the development of 

international technical standards. Title IV requires MEP centers to 

work with local community colleges, creates an innovative services 

initiative, requires a review of the MEP program using the Malcolm Baldrige criteria, and reduces the required MEP cost share. 

Title IV establishes a bioscience research program and increases 

the number of members on the Visiting Committee on Advanced 

Technology. Finally, Title IV requires the Director to establish an 

emergency communication and tracking technologies research initiative, requires the Director to give consideration to the goal of 

broadening participation by underrepresented minorities with respect to existing fellowship programs and to give special consideration to teachers from high-needs schools with respect to the teacher science and technology enhancement program, and provides clarification on the use of cybersecurity standards and guidelines. 

Title V establishes an Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship 

at the Department of Commerce and creates an Advisory Council 

on Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Title V also requires the Secretary of Commerce to establish a federal loan guarantee program 

for innovative technologies in manufacturing. Finally, Title V requires the Secretary of Commerce to establish a regional innovation program. 

Title VI directs the Secretary of Energy to carry out research activities in science, including through programs in basic energy 

sciences, biological and environmental research, advanced scientific 

computing research, fusion energy sciences, high energy physics, 

and nuclear physics. Title VI authorizes funding for the activities 

of the Office of Science. Title VI also authorizes funding for the Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy and makes changes to 

the program. Finally, Title VI establishes a program to create Energy Innovation Hubs at the Department of Energy and directs the 

Secretary of Energy to make funds available to National Laboratories to pay the federal share of cooperative research and development agreements. 

Title VII includes a Sense of Congress relating to the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences, requires special consideration for institutions of higher education chartered to 

serve large numbers of students with disabilities and those serving 

disabled veterans, and requires preference to applications from veterans and service members for scholarships and fellowships. 

VII. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Sec. 1. Short title.—‘‘America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 

2010’’ 

TITLE I—SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY 

Subtitle A—National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments 

Sec. 101. Short title.—‘‘National Nanotechnology Initiative 

Amendments Act of 2010.’’ 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
92 

Sec. 102. National Nanotechnology Program Amendments.— 

Modifies the NNI strategic plan to include the specification of: (1) 

near and long term objectives, (2) the timeframe for achieving near 

term objectives, (3) the metrics for measuring progress toward objectives, and (4) multi-agency funded projects in areas of significant 

economic and societal impacts authorized under section 105. Requires the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO) to 

(1) develop a public database for projects funded under the Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS), Education and Societal Dimensions, and Nanomanufacturing program component areas; (2) 

develop, maintain and publicize information about NNI supported 

nanotechnology facilities available for use by academia and industry; (3) to report annually on its current and future budget requirements. Revises the charge to the National Academy of Sciences’ 

National Research Council for the content and scope of the triennial reviews of the NNI Program. 

Sec. 103. Societal dimensions of nanotechnology.—Requires an 

OSTP associate director to fulfill the role of coordinator for the societal dimensions component of NNI, and assigns specific responsibilities and duties to such coordinator. Requires the Program to support formal and informal nanotechnology science education, including support for course development, and faculty professional development. Requires formation of an Education Working Group to coordinate, prioritize, and plan the educational activities funded 

under the NNI. 

Sec. 104. Technology transfer.—Requires agencies supporting 

nanotechnology research facilities under the NNI to allow, and encourage, use of these facilities to assist companies in developing 

prototype products, devices, or processes for determining proof of 

concept. Requires agencies to encourage applications for support of 

nanotechnology projects under the SBIR, STTR, and TIP programs. 

Encourages the creation of industry liaison groups in all relevant 

industry sectors to foster technology transfer and to help guide the 

NNI research agenda. 

Sec. 105. Research in areas of national importance.—Requires 

the NNI to include support for large-scale nanotechnology research 

and development activities in application areas with potential for 

significant contributions to national economic competitiveness or 

other important societal benefits. 

Sec. 106. Nanomanufacturing research.—Specifies specific areas 

of research and development under the Nanomanufacturing program component area. Requires the NNI Advisory Panel to review 

the adequacy of the funding level for the Nanomanufacturing program component area and its relevance to industry needs. 

Sec. 107. Definitions.—Defines terms used in the subtitle. 

Subtitle B—Networking and Information Technology Research and 

Development 

Sec. 111. Short Title.—‘‘Networking and Information Technology 

Research and Development Act of 2010’’. 

Sec. 112. Program planning and coordination.—Requires the 

NITRD agencies to periodically assess the program contents and 

funding levels and to update the program accordingly. Requires the 

NITRD agencies to develop and periodically update (at 3–year intervals) a strategic plan for the program and requires an annual 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
93 

update on how the program activities planned and underway relate 

to the objectives specified in the strategic plan. 

Sec. 113. Large-scale research in areas of national importance.— 

Authorizes the NITRD agencies to support large-scale, long-term, 

interdisciplinary research with the potential to make significant 

contributions to society and U.S. economic competitiveness and to 

encourage collaboration between at least two agencies as well as 

cost-sharing from non-Federal sources. 

Sec. 114. Cyber-physical systems and information management.—Requires the program to support research and development 

in cyber-physical systems; human-computer interactions, visualization, and information management. Requires the NCO Director to 

convene a university/industry task force to explore mechanisms for 

carrying out collaborative research and development activities for 

cyber-physical systems. 

Sec. 115. National coordination office.—Formally establishes the 

NCO; delineates the office’s responsibilities; mandates annual operating budgets; specifies the source of funding for the office (consistent with current practice); and stresses the role of the NCO in 

developing the strategic plan and in public outreach and communication with outside communities of interest. 

Sec. 116. Improving networking and information technology education.—Requires NSF use their programs to improve the teaching 

and learning of networking and information technology and encourage the participation of women and underrepresented minorities. 

Sec. 117. Conforming and technical amendments.—Makes conforming and technical changes to the High-Performance Computing 

Act of 1991. 

Subtitle C—Other OSTP Provisions 

Sec. 121. Federal scientific collections.—Requires the Office of 

Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), in consultation with relevant Federal agencies, to develop formal policies for the management and use of Federal scientific collections, including policies for 

the disposal of collections, and to create an online clearinghouse for 

information on the contents of and access to Federal scientific collections. 

Sec. 122. Coordination of manufacturing research and development.—Establishes an interagency committee under the National 

Science and Technology Council (NSTC) with responsibilities to 

plan and coordinate Federal programs and activities in manufacturing research and development and to develop a strategic plan. 

Sec. 123. Interagency Public Access Committee.—Requires OSTP 

to establish a working group under the NSTC to coordinate Federal 

science agency policies related to the dissemination and long-term 

stewardship of the results of unclassified federally funded research. 

Requires OSTP to solicit input and recommendations from and to 

collaborate with non-Federal stakeholders in the development of 

any policies related to public access and requires OSTP to submit 

a report to Congress within 1 year describing the status of any 

such policies and how stakeholder input was incorporated. 

Sec. 124. Fulfilling the potential of women in academic science 

and engineering.—Authorizes a program of workshops to minimize 

gender bias in academic science and engineering for Federal 

science agencies; requires Federal science agencies to collect and 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
94 

report composite data, including demographic data, on Federal research and development grants; and requires OSTP to develop uniform Federal policies to ensure that Federally funded researchers 

with caregiving responsibilities can maintain their research programs while attending to those responsibilities. 

TITLE II—NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Sec. 201. Short title.—‘‘The National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2010’’. 

Subtitle A—General Provisions 

Sec. 211. Definitions.—Provides definitions for terms used in this 

title. 

Sec. 212. Authorization of appropriations.—Authorizes $44 billion 

for the National Science Foundation (NSF) for fiscal years 2011– 

2015, including $35.2 billion for research and related activities 

(R&RA), $5.5 billion for education and human resources (EHR), 

and $1.2 billion for major research equipment and facilities construction (MREFC). 

Sec. 213. National science board administrative amendments.— 

Eliminates the cap on the number of professional staff for the National Science Board (‘‘the Board’’). Changes the date on which the 

Board’s biennial Science and Engineering Indicators is due to the 

President and Congress. Modifies the scope of reports the Board 

may submit to the President and Congress. Modifies audit requirement for Board adherence to the Sunshine Act. 

Sec. 214. Broader impacts review criterion.—Clarifies the intent 

of the Foundation’s Broader Impacts Review Criterion. Requires 

the Director to develop and implement a Foundation-wide policy 

that: includes a plan to educate Foundation staff, merit review panels, and grant applicants on the goals of the broader impacts review criterion; encourages colleges, universities and other organizations such as science museums to help NSF-funded investigators 

achieve the goals of the broader impacts review criterion through 

existing evidence-based programs and activities; and requires grant 

applicants to provide evidence of such institutional support for the 

portion of their proposal intended to satisfy the broader impact review criterion. 

Sec. 215. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics.—Establishes the Foundation’s Division of Science Resource 

Statistics as the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics and codifies its function as the central federal clearinghouse 

for objective data on the scientific and engineering enterprise and 

the state of STEM education. 

Sec. 216. Collection of data on demographics of faculty.—Requires the Director to report statistical summary data on the demographics of STEM faculty at institutions of higher education in the 

United States. 

Subtitle B—Research and Innovation 

Sec. 221. Support for potentially transformative research.—Requires the Director to apply at least 5 percent of the agency’s research toward high-risk, high-reward basic research. Provide a defVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
95 

inition for ‘‘high-risk, high-reward’’ and examples for how the Director may meet the 5 percent requirement. 

Sec. 222. Facilitating interdisciplinary collaborations for national 

needs.—Requires the Director to provide awards for interdisciplinary research collaborations that are designed to address critical 

challenges to national security, competitiveness, and societal wellbeing. 

Sec. 223. National Science foundation manufacturing research 

and education.—Requires the Director to carry out a program to 

award competitive grants for manufacturing research and requires 

the Director to award grants to strengthen advanced manufacturing education and training. 

Sec. 224. Strengthening institutional research partnerships.—In 

cases where a research grant involves a partnership of colleges and 

universities, including a minority-serving institution or a predominately undergraduate institution, the Director is required to award 

funds to at least two of the institutions directly, including at least 

one minority-serving or predominately undergraduate institution. 

Sec. 225. National Science Board report on mid-scale instrumentation.—Requires the Board to evaluate the need for mid-scale research instrumentation (instrumentation that falls between the 

Major Research Instrumentation program and the Major Research 

Equipment and Facilities Construction program), and provide recommendations regarding how the Foundation can best address 

those needs. 

Sec. 226. Sense of Congress on overall support for research infrastructure at the Foundation.—Expresses the sense of Congress that 

the Foundation should strive to keep the percentage of the Foundation budget devoted to research infrastructure in the range of 24 

to 27 percent, as recommended in the 2003 National Science Board 

report, ‘‘Science and Engineering Infrastructure for the 21st Century.’’ 

Sec. 227. Partnerships for innovation.—Requires the Director to 

carry out a program to support partnerships between institutions 

of higher education and private sector entities in order to promote 

innovation and increase the economic and social impact of the research. Gives priority to partnerships that involve one of the top 

100 research institutions and either a minority-serving institution, 

a primarily undergraduate institution, or a 2-year college. 

Sec. 228. Prize awards.—Requires the Director to establish a 3- 

year pilot program to award innovation inducement cash prizes in 

research areas supported by the Foundation. 

Subtitle C—Stem Education and Workforce Training 

Sec. 241. Graduate student support.—Requires the Director to increase or decrease funding for the Integrative Graduate Education 

and Research Traineeship (IGERT) program at the same rate as 

the Graduate Research Fellowship (GRF) program. Requires that 

at least half of the total funds for IGERT and GRF come from the 

R&RA account. Requires the Director to increase the current cost 

of education allowance for awards made through the GRF program 

by $1,500. 

Sec. 242. Postdoctoral fellowship in stem education research.— 

Requires the Director to establish a postdoctoral fellowship program to encourage recent doctoral degree graduates in the STEM 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
96 

fields to pursue STEM education research and become leaders in 

STEM education reform. 

Sec. 243. Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program.—Lowers 

the required amount of institutional matching for Noyce grants 

under Section 10A (master teachers and STEM professionals) from 

50 to 30 percent and requires that the institutional match be met 

in cash only. 

Sec. 244. Institutions serving persons with disabilities.—Ensures 

that institutions of higher education that are chartered to serve 

students with disabilities can benefit from STEM bridge programs 

and from research partnerships with major research universities 

funded by NSF. Clarifies that nothing in this section shall be construed to amend or otherwise affect any of the current statutory 

definitions for minority-serving institutions. 

Sec. 245. Institutional integration.—Requires the Director to 

award grants to colleges and universities for the integration of 

Foundation funded projects at those institutions in order to increase collaboration across funded projects and expand the impact 

of such projects. 

Sec. 246. Postdoctoral research fellowships.—Requires the Director to establish a Foundation-wide postdoctoral research fellowship 

program, with priority given to proposals for interdisciplinary research and high-risk, high-reward research. 

Sec. 247. Broadening participation training and outreach.—Requires the Director to provide education and training to Foundation 

staff and review panels on effective tools for increasing participation in STEM by underrepresented groups. 

Sec. 248. Transforming undergraduate education in STEM.—Requires the Director to award grants to colleges and universities to 

reform undergraduate STEM education in their institutions, and 

specifies that proposals must include evidence of institutional support for, and commitment to, the proposed reform effort. 

Sec. 249. 21st Century graduate education.—Requires the Director to award grants to institutions of higher education for the implementation or expansion of reforms in graduate STEM education 

that emphasize preparation for diverse STEM careers. 

Sec. 250. Undergraduate Broadening Participation Program.— 

Prohibits the Foundation from consolidating the Historically Black 

Colleges and Universities Undergraduate Program, the Louis 

Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation program, and the Tribal 

Colleges and Universities Program into a single program in fiscal 

year 2011 (as proposed in the agency’s budget request). Requires 

the Director to develop and submit a plan to Congress clarifying 

the objectives and rationale prior to any consolidation of the programs. 

Sec. 251. Grand challenges in education research.—Requires 

NSF and the Department of Education (ED) to identify, prioritize, 

and develop strategies to address grand challenges in research and 

development for pre-K–12 STEM education. Requires NSF and ED 

to collaborate on a report to Congress outlining the grand challenges, the role of each agency in addressing the challenges, 

metrics for assessing progress toward meeting the challenges, how 

the agencies will disseminate the results of the research, and how 

the agencies will support the implementation of best practices. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
97 

Sec. 252. Research experiences for undergraduates.—Requires 

the Director to award grants to institutions of higher education, 

nonprofit organizations, or consortia of such institutions and organizations, for sites designated to provide research experiences for 

10 or more undergraduate STEM students. Requires that research 

grant recipients planning to include undergraduate students in carrying out their research request support for the undergraduate students as part of the research proposal itself rather than as a supplement to the research proposal. 

Sec. 253. Laboratory Science Pilot Program.—Extends a pilot 

program at the Foundation to improve laboratory learning at highneeds high schools. 

Sec. 254. STEM Industry Internship Program.—Authorizes the 

Director to award grants to institutions of higher education to establish partnerships with local and regional private sector entities 

for the purpose of helping undergraduate students connect internship experiences with STEM coursework. 

Sec. 255. Tribal Colleges and Universities Program.—Requires 

the Director to award grants to tribal colleges and universities to 

enhance STEM education at such institutions and to increase the 

retention and graduation rates of Native American students pursuing STEM degrees. 

TITLE III—STEM EDUCATION 

Sec. 301. Coordination of Federal STEM education.—Establishes 

an interagency committee to coordinate Federal programs and activities in support of STEM education. Requires this committee to 

develop a STEM education strategic plan to inform program and 

budget planning for agencies and to establish and maintain an inventory of federally sponsored STEM education activities, including 

documentation on program assessments. Requires the Director of 

OSTP to submit an annual report to Congress including a description and level of funding of the STEM education programs and activities of each participating Federal agency for the previous and 

current fiscal years. 

Sec. 302. Advisory Committee on STEM education.—Requires the 

President to establish an advisory committee on STEM education 

responsible for soliciting input from a variety of stakeholder groups 

in order to offer guidance to the President on how to better align 

Federal programs with the needs of States and school districts, and 

to improve connectivity between public and private STEM education efforts. 

Sec. 303. STEM education at the Department of Energy.—Clarifies the role of the Department in contributing to STEM education, 

including energy systems science and engineering education, at all 

levels. Specifies the kinds of STEM education programs and activities that the Department is authorized to carry out. Requires the 

Secretary to appoint or designate a Director of STEM education 

with responsibility to oversee and coordinate all STEM education 

programs and activities across the Department. Requires the Director to develop, implement, and update a STEM education strategic 

plan for the Department, and maintain an online inventory of 

STEM education programs at the Department. Requires the Secretary to consult and partner with the Department of Education 

and the National Science Foundation on STEM education activities, 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
98 

when appropriate. Requires the Secretary to award grants to colleges and universities to develop or expand the energy systems 

science and engineering education capabilities of the institution 

and provide support to graduate students pursuing such courses of 

study. 

Sec. 304. Green energy education.—Authorizes the Secretary to 

contribute funds to NSF’s Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship program to support graduate training in energy 

research and authorizes the Secretary to contribute funds to NSF 

for curriculum development activities in the design and construction of high performance buildings. 

TITLE IV—NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

Sec. 401. Short title.—‘‘National Institute of Standards and Technology Authorization Act of 2010’’. 

Sec. 402. Authorization of appropriations.—Authorizes a total of $5.628 billion for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for FY 2011 through FY 2015. The total consists of 

authorization levels of $1.012 billion in FY 2011, $1.035 billion in 

FY 2012, $1.137 billion in FY 2013, $1.188 billion in FY 2014, and 

$1.256 billion in FY 2015. 

Includes within the total authorization a total of $3.495 billion 

for NIST labs for FY 2011 through FY 2015. The total for NIST 

labs consists of authorization levels of $620.0 million in FY 2011, 

$657.2 million in FY 2012, $696.7 million in FY 2013, $738.5 million in FY 2014, and $782.8 million in FY 2015. 

Includes within the total authorization a total of $589 million for 

construction and maintenance of facilities for FY 2011 through FY 

2015. The total for construction and maintenance consists of authorization levels of $125 million for FY 2011, $85 million for FY 

2012, $122 million for FY 2013, $124 million for FY 2014, and $133 

million for FY 2015. 

Includes within the total authorization $1.545 billion for industrial technology services for FY 2011 through FY 2015, which includes a total of $681 million for the Technology Innovation Program (TIP), a total of $811.2 million for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program, and a total of $53.1 million for 

the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award program. The total 

for TIP consists of authorization levels of $116 million for FY 2011, 

$132 million for FY 2012, $147 million for FY 2013, $142 million 

for FY 2014, and $144 million for FY 2015. The total for MEP consists of authorization levels of $141.1 million for FY 2011, $150.9 

million for FY 2012, $161.5 million for FY 2013, $172.8 million for 

FY 2014, and $184.9 million for FY 2015. The total for the Malcolm 

Baldrige National Quality Award program includes authorization 

levels for $10 million for FY 2011, $10.3 million for FY 2012, $10.6 

million for FY 2013, $10.9 million for FY 2014, and $11.3 million 

for FY 2015. 

Sec. 403. Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology.—Creates the position of the Under Secretary of Commerce 

for Standards and Technology. The current Director of NIST would 

become the Under Secretary until a successor is appointed. (This 

is the same structure as at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA)) 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
99 

Sec. 404. Reorganization of NIST laboratories.—Organizes the 

NIST laboratories into the following operational units: the Physical 

Measurement Lab, the Information Technology Lab, the Engineering Lab, the Material Measurement Lab, the Center for Nanoscale 

Science and Technology, and the NIST Center for Neutron Research. Allows the Director to make future changes to the NIST 

laboratory structure, provided he submit a report to Congress before implementing such change. 

Sec. 405. Federal Government standards and conformity assessment coordination.—Assigns the Director of NIST the responsibility 

of convening federal departments and agencies to coordinate Federal Government policy goals and engagement on international 

technical standards and conformity assessment-related activities, 

working with industry and standards development organizations. 

Requires the Director to submit a report to Congress which addresses current and anticipated international standards issues with 

the potential to impact U.S. competitiveness and innovation capabilities, actions taken by the Federal Government to address these 

issues, and any action the Director is taking, or will take, to ensure 

effective Federal Government engagement on technical standards 

and conformity assessment-related issues. 

Sec. 406. Manufacturing extension partnership.—Requires MEP 

Centers to inform local and regional community colleges of the skill 

sets local manufacturers need in their workplace; creates an innovative services initiative to assist small and medium-sized manufacturers to reduce their energy usage and environmental waste 

and to accelerate the domestic commercialization of new product 

technologies (including components of renewable energy systems); 

requires centers perform market analysis to ensure there is market 

demand for these new product technologies; requires NIST to assess its administration of the MEP program using the criteria of 

the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award; reduces the required cost share of all MEP Centers for fiscal years 2011 through 

2015 and requires a report from the Under Secretary four years 

after enactment, with his recommendations on cost-share provisions; and exempts the MEP Advisory Board from Section 14 of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), ‘Termination of advisory 

committees; renewal; continuation.’ 

Sec. 407. Bioscience Research Program.—Establishes a Bioscience Research Program at NIST to support the development of 

standard reference materials and measurements to advance biologic drug research and development, molecular diagnostics, medical imaging technology, and personalized medicine; requires that 

at least one fellow from the postdoctoral fellowship program be assigned to the bioscience research program; allows the Director to 

establish University Research Centers through a competitive application process to conduct research that furthers the objectives of 

the bioscience research program; allows the Director to establish a 

user facility for industry, institutions of higher education, nonprofit 

organizations, and government agencies in order to perform research and testing, and provide access to advanced or unique 

equipment, services, materials, and other resources; requires the 

Director to include the bioscience research program in the programmatic planning document transmitted to Congress. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
100 

Changes the number of NIST’s Visiting Committee on Advanced 

Technology members to vary between 15 and 20 and requires at 

least 13 of those members to be from U.S. industry. 

Sec. 408. Emergency Communication and Tracking Technologies 

Research Initiative.—Requires the Director to establish an initiative to support the development of technical standards and conformance architecture to improve the operation and reliability of 

emergency communication and tracking technologies used in confined spaces, such as underground mines, and shielded environments, such as high-rise buildings and collapsed structures; requires the Director, as part of this initiative, to perform an assessment of the measurement, technical standards, and conformity assessment needs for these types of technologies and to submit a report on this needs assessment to Congress 18 months after enactment. 

Sec. 409. TIP Advisory Board.—Exempts the TIP Advisory Board 

from Section 14 of FACA. 

Sec. 410. Underrepresented minorities.—Requires the Director to 

give consideration to the goal of promoting underrepresented minorities in evaluating applications for NIST fellowships for university students and post-doctoral researchers; requires the Director to 

give special consideration for applications received from teachers at 

high-needs schools for the NIST teacher science and technology enhancement program. 

Sec. 411. Cybersecurity standards and guidelines.—Clarifies that 

the use of cybersecurity standards and guidelines developed by 

NIST for industry and public would not be mandatory. 

Sec. 412. Definitions.—Defines the terms ‘Director’ and ‘Federal 

Agency.’ 

TITLE V—INNOVATION 

Sec. 501. Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship.—Requires 

the Secretary of Commerce to establish an Office of Innovation and 

Entrepreneurship to foster innovation and the commercialization of 

new technologies, products, processes, and services; specifies the 

duties to be carried out by the Office; establishes an Advisory 

Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship to provide advice to 

the Secretary. 

Sec. 502. Federal loan guarantees for innovative technologies in 

manufacturing.—Requires the Secretary of Commerce to establish 

a program to provide loan guarantees to small- and medium-sized 

manufacturers; defines eligible projects as projects to reequip, expand, or establish manufacturing facilities in the United States to 

use an innovative technology or an innovative process in manufacturing, or to manufacture an innovative technology product or an 

integral component of such product. Limits the amount of a loan 

guarantee to an amount equal to 80 percent of the loan; sets out 

specific limitations on the authority to make loan guarantees; lays 

out requirements and limitations in the case of default; permits the 

Secretary to pay principal and interest to lenders or other holders 

of the loan in specified circumstances; sets out terms and conditions for loan guarantees and requires that the Secretary consult 

with the Secretary of the Treasury in establishing terms and conditions for loan guarantees. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
101 

Requires the Secretary to charge and collect fees for loan guarantees; mandates that borrowers, lenders, and other appropriate parties keep pertinent records and documents to facilitate an effective 

audit; provides for the full faith and credit of the United States for 

the payment of loan guarantees; requires the Secretary to issue 

final regulations before making any loan guarantees and specifies 

specific items that must be included in the final regulations. 

Requires the Secretary to enter into an arrangement with an 

independent auditor for annual evaluations of the program and requires the Comptroller General to conduct an annual review of the 

Secretary’s execution of the program; mandates a report to Congress containing a summary of all activities carried out under the 

program. 

Requires that the Secretary ensure that activities carried out 

under the program are coordinated with, and do not duplicate the 

efforts of, other loan guarantee programs within the Federal Government. 

Authorizes the Secretary to use centers established under Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program to provide information about the program and to conduct outreach to potential borrowers. 

Requires the Secretary to promulgate regulations and policies to 

carry out the program in accordance with Office of Management 

and Budget Circular No. A–129. 

States that it is the Sense of Congress that no loan guarantee 

shall be made unless the borrower agrees to use a federally-approved electronic employment eligibility verifications system to 

verify the employment eligibility of persons hired during the contract term by the borrower to perform employment duties within 

the U.S. and persons assigned by the borrower to perform work 

within the United States on the project. 

Defines ‘‘cost’’, ‘‘innovative process’’, ‘‘innovative technology’’, 

‘‘loan guarantee’’, ‘‘obligation’’, and ‘‘program’’. Provides an authorization of $50 million for each of Fiscal Year 

2011 through Fiscal year 2015 for the cost of loan guarantees; provides an authorization of such sums as are necessary for the Secretary to make payments of principal and interest under subsection 

(g). 

Sec. 503. Regional Innovation Program.—Requires the Secretary 

of Commerce to establish a regional innovation program to encourage and support the development of regional innovation strategies, 

including regional innovation clusters. Authorizes the Secretary to 

award grants on a competitive basis to States, tribes, local governments, nonprofit organizations, institutions of higher education, 

public-private partnerships, or economic development organizations 

for activities relating to the formation and development of regional 

innovation clusters; specifies activities for which grants may be 

used; defines eligible recipient; establishes requirements for grant 

applications; limits the amount of any project that the Secretary 

can provide to 50 percent; requires that the Secretary ensure that 

activities funded use and apply research, best practices, and 

metrics developed under the innovation research and information 

program. 

Establishes a regional innovation research and information program; specifies the activities of the research and information proVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
102 

gram; permits the Secretary to award research grants to support 

and further the goals of the program; requires that the Secretary 

make data and analysis compiled under the research and information program available to other Federal agencies, State and local 

governments, and nonprofit and for-profit entities; requires that 

the Secretary incorporate data and analysis relating to any regional innovation cluster supported by a grant under subsection (b) 

into the research and information program. 

Requires that the Secretary ensure that activities are coordinated with, and do not duplicate the efforts of, other programs at 

the Department of Commerce and other Federal agencies; requires 

the Secretary to explore and pursue ways to collaborate with other 

Federal agencies, including through multiagency funding opportunities, on regional innovation strategies. 

Requires that the Secretary, within 4 years of enactment, enter 

into a contract with an independent entity, such as the National 

Academy of Sciences, to conduct an evaluation of the program, including a recommendation as to whether the program should be 

continued or terminated. 

Defines ‘‘regional innovation cluster’’ 

Authorizes such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 

2011 through 2015 to carry out the program. 

TITLE VI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Subtitle A—Office of Science 

Sec. 601. Short Title.—‘‘DOE Office of Science Authorization Act 

of 2010’’ 

Sec. 602. Definitions.—Defines ‘‘Department’’, ‘‘Director’’, ‘‘Office 

of Science’’, and ‘‘Secretary’’ 

Sec. 603. Office of Science Activities.—Codifies the mission and 

duties of the Office of Science, and directs the Secretary of Energy 

to carry out research activities in science supporting the missions 

of the Department, including programs on basic energy sciences, biological and environmental research, advanced scientific computing 

research, fusion energy sciences, high energy physics, and nuclear 

physics. 

Instructs the Department’s Under Secretary for Science to ensure 

the coordination with the other activities of the Department, and 

support joint activities among the Department’s programs. 

Sec. 604.—Basic Energy Sciences Program.—Directs the Director 

of the Office of Science to carry out a program in basic energy 

sciences, including materials sciences and engineering, chemical 

sciences, biosciences, and geosciences, for the purpose of providing 

the scientific foundations for new energy technologies. As part of 

this program, the Director is instructed to support: construction 

and operation of the program’s major user facilities; competitively 

awarded energy frontier research centers; and relevant accelerator 

research and development activities, in coordination with the Office 

of Science’s High Energy Physics and Nuclear Physics programs. 

Sec. 605. Biological and Environmental Research Program.—Authorizes a program of research, development, and demonstration in 

the areas of biological systems science and climate and environmental science. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
103 

The biological systems science research includes activities to: establish a virtual systems biology information framework; support 

research on computational biology; continue the research of the bioenergy research centers, and expand them to include biobased 

products; and direct the program to develop a synthetic biology 

plan. 

The climate and environment science research includes activities 

to: support the research and coordination of the ecosystem observation AmeriFlux Network; develop a next-generation ecosystem-climate change experiment; continue research in regional and global 

climate modeling; support integrated assessment research. 

Sec. 606. Advanced Scientific Computing Research Program.—Directs the Director to carry out a research, development, demonstration, and commercial application program to advance computational and networking capabilities to analyze, model, simulate, and 

predict complex phenomena relevant to the development of new energy technologies and the competitiveness of the United States. 

Instructs the Secretary to produce a plan to integrate and leverage the expertise and capabilities of the program, as well as other 

relevant computational programs and resources supported by the 

Federal Government, to advance the missions of the Department’s 

applied energy and energy efficiency programs. 

Instructs the Secretary to, at least 18 months prior to the initiation of construction or installation of any exascale-class computing 

facility, produce a plan detailing the proposed facility’s cost projections and capabilities to significantly accelerate the development of 

new energy technologies. 

Authorizes research and development activities in applied mathematics, high-end computing software development, and next-generation computing architectures and platforms to support the missions of the Department. 

Sec. 607. Fusion Energy Research Program.—Directs the Director to carry out a fusion energy sciences research and enabling 

technology development program on the scientific and engineering 

challenges to building a cost-competitive fusion power plant and a 

fusion power industry in the United States. 

As part of this program, the Director is instructed to: coordinate 

and carry out the responsibilities of the United States with respect 

to the ITER international fusion project; produce a 10-year 

prioritization plan; support fusion materials research and development activities in coordination with the Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy; carry out a computational project to advance the capability of fusion researchers to accurately simulate an entire fusion energy system, in collaboration with the Advanced Scientific 

Computing Research program. 

In addition, the Secretary is instructed to establish a research 

and technology development program in inertial fusion for energy 

applications. 

Sec. 608. High Energy Physics Program.—Directs the Director to 

carry out a research program on the elementary constituents of 

matter and energy and the nature of space and time. 

As part of this program, the Director is instructed to support research in the nature of the neutrino, dark energy, and dark matter. 

The Director is also instructed to carry out research and development in advanced accelerator concepts and technologies to reduce 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
104 

the necessary scope and cost for the next generation of particle accelerators. 

Sec. 609. Nuclear Physics Program.—Directs the Director to 

carry out a research program, and support relevant facilities, to 

discover and understand various forms of nuclear matter. 

Director is also instructed to carry out a program for the production of isotopes, including the development of techniques to produce 

isotopes, for research applications. 

Sec. 610. Science Laboratories Infrastructure Program.—Directs 

the Director to carry out a program to improve the safety, efficiency, and mission readiness of infrastructure at Office of Science 

laboratories. 

Sets the minor construction threshold at Office of Science laboratories at $10 million, to be adjusted by the Secretary in accordance 

with the Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index, or an 

appropriate alternative index as determined by the Secretary, once 

every five years after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Sec. 611. Authorization of appropriations.— Authorizes to be appropriated to the Secretary of Energy for the activities of the Office 

of Science: $5,247,000,000 for FY 2011; $5,614,000,000 for FY 2012; 

$6,007,000,000 for FY 2013; $6,428,000,000 for FY 2014; and 

$6,878,000,000 for FY 2015. 

Subtitle B—Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy 

Sec. 621. Short title.—ARPA–E Reauthorization Act of 2010. 

Sec. 622. ARPA–E amendments.—Amends section 5012 of the 

America COMPETES Act of 2007 through the following: 

(1) In Goals: Adds provisions to clarify that ARPA–E will achieve 

its goals through both fundamental ‘‘and applied’’ science, and 

through ‘‘promoting the commercial application of advanced energy 

technologies’’. 

(2) In Responsibilities of the Director: Emphasizes that the R&D 

on manufacturing processes and technologies should be for the domestic manufacturing of novel energy technologies. 

(3) In Responsibilities of the Director: Inserts provision to specify 

that the Director will require applicants to disclose prior efforts 

and investments in their technology, adopt measures to ensure that 

ARPA–E funds projects in areas not likely to be undertaken by industry alone, and report on instances where funding augments efforts undertaken by industry. 

(4) Re-designates subsections (f) as (g), and reorders all subsections thereafter 

(5) Inserts new subsection ‘‘(f) AWARDS’’ to clarify that the Director of ARPA–E has the authority to initiate and execute the full 

range of award instruments of the Department, including grants, 

contracts, cooperative agreements, cash prizes and other transactions. ‘‘Other Transactions Authority’’ is a flexible contracting authority granted to the Department in Section 1007 of the Energy 

Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005. 

(6) In Personnel: Inserts new paragraph (1) requiring the Director to maintain a staff of qualified and experienced personnel to 

serve within ARPA–E. 

Makes changes to clarify that program managers (program directors) can direct more than one program, and that program managers (program directors) are not required to seek the advice of adVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
105 

visory committees or scientific organizations in making award selections. Adds to the list of program manager (program director) responsibilities identifying cost-sharing opportunities for projects, including through possible exercising of waiver authority by the Secretary under Section 988 of EPAct 2005; and identifying ways to 

transfer successful energy technology projects to the marketplace. 

Clarifies that the term of a program manager (program director) 

may be ‘‘up to’’ 3 years. Replaces term ‘‘program manager’’ with 

‘‘program director’’ to align with current practices of ARPA–E. 

Strikes requirement that ARPA–E maintain a staff of 70–120 

employees. Authorizes the Director to select exceptional scientific, 

legal, business, and technical personnel to serve as limited terms 

as Fellows. 

(7) In Reports and Roadmaps: Shifts deadlines for the Strategic 

Vision Roadmap from 2008 and 2011, to 2010 and 2013, respectively. 

(8) In Federal Demonstration of Technologies: Strengthens existing language to require Director to actively seek opportunities to 

demonstrate ARPA–E technologies through procurement by DOE 

and other federal agencies. 

(9) Inserts new subsection ‘‘(k) Events’’ authorizing the Director 

to convene events for the purposes of allowing ARPA–E project 

awardees and finalist to demonstrate technologies to a range of 

stakeholders, and for other purposes as determined by the Director. 

Specifies that funding for events will be provided from funds used 

for technology transfer and outreach. 

(10) In ARPA–E Evaluation: Changes from ‘‘4 years’’ to ‘‘6 years’’ 

the time after establishment at which the National Academies will 

evaluate the performance of ARPA–E. 

(11) In ARPA–E Evaluation: Adds a requirement that the lessons 

learned in the National Academies evaluation of ARPA–E shall 

consider how such lessons may apply to other programs within 

DOE. 

(12) In Funding: Extends Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal Years 2011 through 2015: (A) $300,000,000 for fiscal year 2011 

(B) $450,000,000 for fiscal year 2012 

(C) $600,000,000 for fiscal year 2013 

(D) $800,000,000 for fiscal year 2014 

(E) $1,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2015 

(13) In Funding: Strikes Limitation which made fiscal year 2008 

funding for ARPA–E contingent upon the Office of Science receiving an increase from 2007. 

(14) In Funding: Increases the amount of funds that shall be 

used for technology transfer and outreach activities from 2.5 percent to 5 percent of total appropriated funds, consistent with the 

program’s goals of advancing technologies to commercial application. 

Subtitle C—Energy Innovation Hubs 

Sec 631. Short title.—Energy Innovation Hubs Authorization Act 

of 2010. 

Sec. 632.—Energy innovation hubs.—(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF 

PROGRAM.—Directs the Secretary to carry out a program to create Energy Innovation Hubs that will conduct and support reVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
106 

search, development, demonstration and commercial application of 

advanced energy technologies. Where practicable these activities 

should occur in a central location. Each Hub created shall be focused on a particular unique advanced energy technology. The Secretary will ensure that the program is coordinated with other DOE 

research entities so as to avoid duplication and shall convene representatives from the Hubs, DOE, and any other relevant entities 

the Secretary find appropriate. The Secretary shall also administer 

each Hub through a DOE program with relevant jurisdiction based 

on a Hub’s technology focus. 

(b) Consortia.—Outlines the requirements that must be met by 

an applicant consortium in order to be eligible to form a Hub. A 

consortium must be made up of at least two qualifying entities who 

have created a binding agreement documenting the partnership 

agreement, measures to ensure cost-effective implementation, a 

proposed budget, conflict of interest procedures, an accounting 

structure, and an external advisory committee. The application 

made by the consortium to the Secretary will be made by one of 

the consortium’s members as a prime applicant. The application 

shall describe the consortium agreement and, in the event consortium members will not be in a centralized location shall include a 

communications plan to ensure integration of the Hub’s activities. 

(c) Selection and schedule.—Establishes the process by which the 

Secretary shall review all consortium applications received. The 

Secretary shall review all Hub applications received, and consortia 

grants will be approved through a competitive process. Any grant 

made to a Hub shall be for a period no longer than five years and 

may be renewed through a competitive process. 

(d) Hub operations.—Details that a Hub shall conduct multidisciplinary, collaborative research, development, demonstration, and 

commercial application of advanced energy technologies. A Hub 

shall encourage collaboration and communication and, whenever 

practicable, conduct its activities at one centralized location. In 

order to provide greater transparency, the Hub shall develop and 

publish on DOE’s website all proposed plans and programs. In addition to a general duty to monitor project implementation and coordination, the Hub shall submit an annual report to the Secretary 

that summarizes all activities and projects, expenditures, and external advisory committee members. 

The external advisory committee each Hub is required to establish under this section will advise Hub management on programs 

and planned activities, but shall not have decision making authority. The advisory committee membership should have sufficient expertise to provide guidance on scientific, technical, financial, and 

research management matters. This section also requires each Hub 

to establish procedures to address conflicts of interest, consistent 

with those already established by DOE. The Secretary may disqualify an application or revoke funds if a failure to disclose any 

conflict of interest is discovered. 

(e) Prohibition on construction.—Prohibits any funds granted by 

the Secretary to a Hub to be used for construction of a new building or facility for Hub activities. Furthermore, construction of new 

buildings or facilities shall not be considered as part of the nonFederal share of a Hub cost-sharing agreement. Excluded from this 

prohibition are any buildings or facilities constructed to serve as a 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
107 

test bed or any renovations to existing buildings or facilities so long 

as the test bed or renovations are limited to the scope and scale 

of the research. 

(f) Oversight board.—Requires the Secretary to establish within 

the Department an Oversight Board to monitor the Hubs and their 

activities. 

(g) Priority consideration.—Requires the Secretary to establish 

within the Department an Oversight Board to monitor the Hubs 

and their activities. 

(h) Definitions.—Provides the definitions for terms used within 

the bill, including: Advanced Energy Technology, Hub, Institution 

of Higher Education, Qualifying Entity, and Secretary. 

(i) Authorization of Appropriations.—Provides authorizations for 

each of the fiscal years 2011 through 2015 as follows: 

(1) $110,000,000 for fiscal year 2011; 

(2) $135,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; 

(3) $195,000,000 for fiscal year 2013; 

(4) $210,000,000 for fiscal year 2014; and 

(5) $210,000,000 for fiscal year 2015. 

SUBTITLE D—COOPERATIVE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FUND

Section 641. Short title.—subtitle is cited as the ‘‘Cooperative Research and Development Fund Authorization Act of 2010’’. 

Section 642. Cooperative Research and Development Fund.—Directs the Secretary of Energy to make funds available to National 

Laboratories to pay the federal share of cooperative research and 

development agreements (CRADA’s). Provides for special consideration of small business in CRADA’s. Directs the Secretary to report 

annually how funds were expended. Authorizes such sums as are 

necessary to carry out the subtitle. 

TITLE VII—MISCELLANEOUS 

Sec. 701. Sense of Congress.—States that it is the Sense of Congress that programs and activities authorized in the bill that correspond to the recommendations of the National Academy of 

Sciences’ 2005 report entitle ‘‘Rising Above the Gathering Storm’’ 

remain critical to maintaining long-term United States economic 

competitiveness and shall receive priority funding. 

Sec. 702. Persons with disabilities.—Requires that, for purposes 

of the activities and programs supported by the bill, institutions of 

higher education chartered to serve large numbers of students with 

disabilities and those with programs serving or those serving disabled veterans receive special consideration and have a designation 

consistent with the designation for other institutions that serve 

populations underrepresented in STEM. 

Sec. 703. Veterans and service members.—Requires that, in 

awarding scholarships and fellowships under the bill, an institution 

of higher education give preference to applications from veterans 

and service members. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
108 

VIII. COMMITTEE VIEWS

TITLE I—SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY 

Section 105—Research in areas of national importance 

The Committee joins the National Nanotechnology Advisory 

Panel in applauding the NNI agencies in the development of three 

signature initiatives in the grand challenge areas of Nanotechnology Applications for Solar Energy, Sustainable Nanomanufacturing, and Nanoelectronics for 2020 and Beyond. The Committee 

agrees with the NNI agencies that the long-term vision for nanomanufacturing is the creation of complex nanodevices through low 

cost, high-rate nanomanufacturing processes that use ‘‘bottom-up’’, 

self-assembly methodologies. An important component of this vision 

is the design and synthesis of uniform, robust nanoelements and 

other nanomaterials. 

The Committee also recognizes that the U.S. economy has benefited greatly over the past decades from advances in semiconductor 

technology, but the ability to scale today’s silicon-based technology 

is rapidly approaching fundamental limitations. The transition to 

nanoelectronics will be as significant as the transition from mechanical electrical switches to vacuum tubes, or from single solid 

state transistors to integrated circuits. Additionally, the Committee 

recognizes the important role public-private research partnerships 

have played in addressing technological challenges and highlights 

the Nanoelectronics Research Initiative as a successful model of 

government-industry-university collaboration. The Committee encourages Federal science agencies to continue to promote and support collaborative research efforts in nanotechnology. 

Section 123—Interagency Public Access Committee 

The Committee is concerned about the possibility of Federal 

agencies working separately to develop disconnected policies related to the dissemination of the results of federally funded research. Not only would such fragmentation put an undue burden 

on the stakeholder communities that answer to multiple agencies, 

it would also have unintended consequences with respect to inhibiting, rather than facilitating transformative advances at interdisciplinary interfaces. Therefore, the Committee included this provision to ensure that agencies collaborate on the complex technical 

and research issues that underlie the development of any public access policies, especially interoperability across agencies, across 

science and engineering disciplines, and across international borders. 

The Committee is pleased with the contributions made by the 

Scholarly Publishing Roundtable, a group of experts from universities, nonprofit and for profit publishers, and libraries who were 

convened by the Committee in 2009 to develop broad agreement on 

recommendations to expand public access to the results of federally 

funded research. The Members of the Roundtable went on to 

produce a report, completed in January, 2010, in which the Roundtable presented general principles, analyses, and recommendations 

concerning public access. Due to the complexity and importance of 

this issue, the Committee urges the Public Access working group 

required under this section to give careful consideration to the 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
109 

Roundtable’s report and to develop a balanced process for seeking 

advice from and collaborating with all parts of the non-Federal 

stakeholder community as it carries out its responsibilities in coordinating Federal science agency research and policies related to 

the dissemination and long-term stewardship of the results of unclassified research. Furthermore, the Committee urges each of the 

Federal science agencies to similarly engage in a meaningful collaboration with stakeholder groups in the development of any agency policies on public access. 

TITLE II—NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Section 211—Definition of STEM 

For the purposes of Title II of this Act, the term ‘STEM’ should 

be understood to be an umbrella term that covers every academic 

discipline and research area supported across the entire Foundation, including discipline based education research. Where the term 

‘STEM’ is used elsewhere in this Act, it is likewise meant to cover 

all disciplines supported by the relevant agency, or in the case of 

the PCAST and NSTC committees established in Title III, STEM 

should be understood to encompass the entire breadth of Federally 

supported research areas. 

Section 214—Broader impacts review criterion 

The Committee understands that the purpose of the broader impacts review criterion, first applied by NSF in the mid–1990’s, is 

to increase the impact of NSF supported research on individual and 

societal well being. The Committee applauds the National Science 

Board for having recommended a broader impacts review criterion, 

and believes it should be applied across more agencies than just 

NSF. The specific list of goals in subsection (a) was included in a 

report to Congress by the Foundation in 2008, as requested in the 

2007 America COMPETES Act. The Committee chose not to amend 

that list developed by the Foundation in 2008. However, the Committee understands that this list may and perhaps should evolve 

over time, and does not intend to preclude the National Science 

Board from launching a more in-depth, comprehensive review of either the goals or implementation of the Foundation’s merit review 

criteria. 

However, the Committee is concerned that this criterion has 

been in place for more than 10 years now with little effort put toward evaluation of its impact or toward holding anyone, including 

NSF funded investigators, accountable for their efforts to satisfy 

the criterion. The Committee understands that these same concerns have been echoed widely by stakeholders, including during 

NSF hosted workshops on this topic. The Committee believes that 

if a broader impacts review criterion is to be applied at all, it 

should be treated with the same rigor as the scientific merit review 

criterion. The intent of Sec. 214 is ensure such rigor, not by putting 

more burden on the individual investigators, but by putting more 

burden on the institutions and other organizations with expertise 

to assist individual investigators in achieving the goals of the review criterion. The Committee also encourages partnerships among 

institutions of higher education, and between institutions and other 

organizations, such as science museums, with expertise and reVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
110 

sources to help investigators achieve one or more of the broader impacts goals. 

While, to the extent practicable, investigators and institutions 

should employ evidence-based strategies and models to meet the 

chosen goal(s) of the broader impact criterion, as described in subsection (b)(2), the Committee does intend to leave room for innovation within the broader impacts portion of a proposal. This is particularly applicable to very large grants, such as Centers grants, 

and awards such as the CAREER awards that explicitly integrate 

education and research. Regarding Centers, the Committee has 

heard concerns that for such large grants, the researchers are too 

often disconnected from the education/outreach component, which 

may be overseen by separate staff. The Committee encourages the 

Foundation and the awardees to put more effort into integrating 

education and research efforts across all grants. 

Section 216—Collection of data on demographics of faculty 

The Committee intends for the Foundation, to the extent practicable, to use existing faculty demographic data sources and survey mechanisms utilized by other Federal agencies, including data 

collected and maintained by the National Center for Education Statistics at the Department of Education. Furthermore, the Committee does not expect institutions of higher education to have to 

report duplicative faculty demographic data to multiple Federal 

agencies, but instead expects the Foundation to work cooperatively 

with appropriate Federal statistical agencies to acquire such data. 

Section 224—Strengthening institutional research partnerships 

The Committee has been hearing for years that institutions with 

significantly less research capacity than the major research universities, especially minority serving institutions, are too often added 

to proposals as an afterthought by the lead university to make the 

proposal appear stronger with respect to satisfying the broader impacts review criterion. This practice is shortsighted and not in 

keeping with the purpose of such partnerships or the broader impacts review criterion. The Committee expects that any partnership 

funded by NSF be a true partnership that engages all players in 

the development and shaping of the proposal from the beginning. 

That does not mean the budget or research activities have to be 

split evenly among partner institutions; it simply means that both 

the needs and the unique strengths of the secondary institutions 

should be respected and taken into account in the development of 

the proposal. While it is not a research partnership, the Committee 

points to the astronomy bridge program between Fisk University 

and Vanderbilt University as an example of the kind of mutually 

beneficial partnership that should be emulated across all NSF 

funded partnerships. 

Section 226—Support for research infrastructure 

The range of 24–27 percent cited in this provision is meant to 

capture the entire breadth of research infrastructure funding at the 

Foundation, including MREFC, all of the maintenance and operations costs for MREFC projects being supported by the research 

directorates, cyberinfrastructure, major research instrumentation 

(MRI), and the several national centers and mid-scale facilities supVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
111 

ported by the Foundation, such as the National Center for Atmospheric Research. 

Section 227—Partnerships for innovation 

The Committee understands that Partnerships for Innovation is 

currently undergoing review and likely to be re-envisioned through 

workshops and other activities that solicit stakeholder input on 

how to make the program most effective. The committee intends 

the language included in the bill to be flexible enough to allow the 

program to evolve, while maintaining key components, such as 

strong partnerships between and among institutions of higher education and industry, and building the capacity of colleges and universities and their researchers to transfer the knowledge they create into jobs and into improved social and economic well being for 

their regions and for the Nation. The Committee intends for the 

term ‘‘social enterprise non-profit organizations’’ to refer to nonprofit social entrepreneurial ventures harnessing the power of technology for social benefit, for example a non-profit organization that 

develops specialized technologies for the disabled. 

Section 228—Prize awards 

The Committee recognizes that an innovation inducement prize 

program falls outside the Foundation’s current experience for supporting basic research. However, the Committee believes that such 

a program is just one more tool to stimulate high-risk research that 

could potentially lead to transformative advances with far-reaching 

benefits for society. The Committee established this program as a 

pilot program to provide the Foundation with the opportunity to 

learn from the program and report back to Congress before the Administration or Congress decides whether to broaden it to a permanent program within the Foundation. Subject to availability of 

funds, the Committee expects the Foundation to hold more than 

one competition under this pilot program, and ideally 3–5 competitions so that the agency gains enough experience to make evidencebased recommendations on whether and how to proceed with such 

a program in the long term. 

The Committee intends the language in subsection (g)(4) to prevent so-called ‘‘double-dipping’’ into Federal funds. In other words, 

the Committee intends for an eligible researcher to pursue the research specific to the prize topic on his or her own time and without Federal funds. The Committee does recognize the incremental 

nature of science, and does not intend to exclude from eligibility a 

researcher who has used Federal funds to contribute to a body of 

knowledge upon which the prize-winning research is built, provided 

that he/she has not received a Federal research grant to carry out 

the specific research for which the prize is being awarded and is 

not diverting funds from a current Federal grant that was awarded 

for a related, but different research question. The same shall be 

true for any undergraduate or graduate student with a current (at 

the time of the prize announcement) Federal scholarship, fellowship, or research internship to pursue the specific area of research 

for which the prize is being awarded. A researcher who may have 

previously received such a scholarship, fellowship or internship in 

another researcher’s laboratory may be eligible provided the other 

criteria described here are met. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
112 

Section 241—Graduate student support 

The Committee chose to tie the growth of the IGERT program to 

that of the GRF program because our effort to achieve the same 

goal through provision of separate authorization levels for each program in the 2007 COMPETES Act went unheeded. The IGERT program has been flat-funded for 2 years now, and the Committee is 

concerned that the Administration will maintain this trend in coming years. The Committee does not intend for either program to cut 

into the many other valuable programs in the EHR budget, however the Committee continues to support the role of EHR in managing and maintaining budgets for both of these graduate programs. 

In subsection (d), the Committee raises the cost of education allowance for graduate fellowships and scholarships from the current 

level of $10,500 to $12,000. However, for any case in which the cost 

of education at an institution is less than $12,000, the Committee 

expects that the difference will be applied toward other allowances 

under the fellowship, including the stipend and any additional allowance that may be included as a standard allowance for all fellows under the GRF or IGERT programs. 

Section 242—Postdoctoral Fellowship in STEM education research 

The Committee encourages the Director to award STEM education research fellowships under this section with consideration 

given to how the research to be supported is coordinated with the 

broader science education community and contributes to the systematic accumulation of knowledge on STEM education. 

Section 243—Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship program 

As it recommended in 2007, the Committee continues to expect 

that the preponderance of the funds for this program will go directly to participants in the form of scholarships and stipends. But 

the Committee also understands that a significant percentage of 

the funds should be used in capacity-building activities, as defined 

in the 2007 Act. The Committee also understands that the resources needed to initiate a teacher education program may exceed 

the level needed for steady state operation of the program. The 

Committee expects that NSF will ensure that resources are allocated under the program to ensure a sufficient investment in capacity-building activities, so that the program does not merely 

hand out scholarships and stipends but rather reforms the way 

teachers are educated. 

Since requiring the non-Federal matching requirement under 

Section 10A of Noyce in 2007, the Committee has learned that a 

number of institutions have provided up to 98 percent of the match 

with in-kind resources. While the Committee recognizes the need 

to provide flexibility to institutions in meeting the match, including 

the reduced match provided for under this Act, the Committee intends for a majority of the non-Federal match to be met in cash, 

except in the cases of small planning grants funded under this program. 

Section 245—Institutional Integration 

The language in this section is based on the Foundation’s new I3

program, and is consistent with the common theme of institutional 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
113 

transformation that cuts across this entire Title. While proposals 

may be focused entirely on integrating large EHR projects at an institution, the Committee also encourages the Foundation to solicit 

proposals that seek to institutionalize education and broadening 

participation efforts that may initially be funded through other 

NSF grants, such as Centers grants and CAREER awards. 

Section 248—Transforming Undergraduate Education in STEM 

The Committee intends that in cases for which consortia of institutions apply for a grant focused on reform in a single discipline 

across multiple institutions, and the relevant disciplinary society 

serves as the convener of the consortia, that society, provided it is 

otherwise eligible for NSF grants, may serve as the fiscal agent on 

the grant. 

Section 249—21st Century graduate education 

The Committee is supportive of NSF’s GK–12 program, which 

provides graduate students in STEM with the opportunity to 

broaden their skills and translate their science for K–12 students 

and teachers, and understands that it has received very positive reviews. However, the Committee believes that there are many activities that could strengthen and broaden the graduate student experience and ensure that such students are prepared for diverse careers that utilize their STEM degrees. Therefore, it is the intention 

of the Committee that over the next few years, the budget for the 

GK–12 program, and the program itself, be captured by this broader initiative in graduate education. 

The Committee recognizes the importance of master’s programs 

to prepare future science professionals for careers in the business, 

government and non-profit sectors and intends that proposals to 

implement or expand innovative professional science master’s degree programs remain eligible for funding under this section. 

Section 250—Undergraduate Broadening Participation program 

In Sec. 7033 of the 2007 America COMPETES Act, the Congress 

authorized a program to enhance the quality of undergraduate 

STEM education at Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) and to increase the number of Hispanic students receiving associate’s and 

baccalaureate degrees in STEM, as well as the number of Hispanic 

students continuing on to pursue graduate studies in STEM. The 

Committee understands that the Foundation needed time to hold 

workshops and solicit community input on how to shape such a 

program to make it most effective for its intended purposes, and is 

now carrying out a comprehensive review of its entire portfolio of 

undergraduate broadening participation programs. However, it remains the intention of the Committee that the Foundation award 

grants that take into account the unique needs and challenges of 

Hispanic students pursuing STEM studies at those institutions and 

that allow HSIs to shape the proposals to meet their own institutions’ and students’ needs in order to achieve the goals of Sec. 7033 

of the 2007 Act. 

The Committee expects any plan by NSF to realign or consolidate existing undergraduate broadening participation programs to 

be developed in full consultation and collaboration with all affected 

communities and institutions. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
114 

TITLE III—STEM EDUCATION 

Section 303—STEM education at the Department of Energy 

The Committee intends for this section to provide guidance to the 

Department of Energy on the development of a vision and strategy 

for the role of the Department in contributing to STEM education, 

including energy sciences and engineering education, at all levels, 

both to address the Department’s own workforce needs, and to contribute more broadly to improving the state of STEM education in 

the United States. Furthermore, the Committee is concerned about 

the lack of intra-agency coordination of STEM education activities 

at the Department. Therefore, the Committee calls for the appointment or designation of a Director of STEM Education, responsible 

for overseeing and coordinating all activities in support of STEM 

education at the Department. The Secretary may choose to house 

this person organizationally within the Office of Science, but the 

Committee intends for the Director to be given responsibility to advise on and coordinate all STEM education matters and activities 

across the Department, including those funded by the applied energy technology offices. It is preferable that colleges and universities have a single portal through which to seek information regarding and funding from the Department’s education programs. 

Finally, while the Committee recognizes and supports the need for 

the applied energy technology offices and their respective National 

Labs to develop stronger collaborations with universities, the Committee urges the Department to take seriously its proposed partnership with the National Science Foundation in carrying out its 

education programs at both the K–12 and higher education levels. 

In particular, the Committee recommends that the Department 

find a way to partner with the Foundation to co-fund excellent energy-related proposals submitted to the Foundation’s Advanced 

Technological Education program rather than establishing a similar but separate 2-year college program within the Department. Finally, with respect to the $55 million in new energy education 

funding proposed in the Department’s FY 2011 budget request, the 

Committee recommends that the preponderance of funding under 

that proposal go toward the higher education activities described in 

this section. 

TITLE IV—NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

Section 403—Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and 

Technology 

By elevating the Director of NIST to the level of an Under Secretary, the Committee anticipates and expects that NIST will play 

a more active role in federal innovation and standards policy, in 

keeping with NIST’s mission and role as outlined by Congress in 

its original 1901 statute. This is particularly true in areas where 

the development and maintenance of technical standards support a 

national need and policy, such as in electronic health care records, 

smart grid, electronic voting equipment, the World Trade Center 

collapse investigation, and cybersecurity. In the past, NIST has 

been reticent to fully engage in its original mission. The Committee 

strongly supported the elevation of Dr. Patrick Gallagher to become 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
115 

the 14th NIST Director due to the sense of leadership and vision 

he has already brought to NIST. It is our intent to fully support 

Dr. Gallagher in his endeavors to reinvigorate NIST to meet its 

original Congressional mandate. As a measure of our confidence, 

we felt that by elevating the NIST Director to an Under Secretary 

level, NIST would have a greater voice and impact in Administration deliberations. 

Section 404—Reorganization of NIST laboratories 

The Committee endorses the Administration’s concept of a more 

multidisciplinary and streamlined laboratory structure at NIST. 

The Committee expects the structure to result in more efficient operations and a more proactive and responsive approach to industry 

measurement needs. The current laboratory structure and mission 

statements are more than twenty years old and the basic tenant 

of Moore’s law would conclude that such structure is sadly out of 

date. The Committee expects NIST to quickly implement the proposed lab organization. In addition, the Committee is well aware 

that technology innovation is not static and certainly not on twenty-year cycles. The Committee encourages critical self-examination 

by NIST to ensure its activities and structure meet current and 

near-term technical needs of industry. 

Section 405—Federal Government standards and conformity assessment coordination 

The Committee has long been aware of the often confused and 

conflicting response by the U.S. Government to international technical standards issues dating back to a set of oversight hearings 

the Committee initiated in the mid-nineties. The Administration 

has also recognized this problem in its recent Cyberspace Policy Review, in which one of the recommendations was the need for a single locus in the Federal Government to formulate U.S. Government 

policy related to international cybersecurity technical standards. 

The Committee expects NIST to take a much more central and active role within the Federal Government and in coordination with 

appropriate private sector entities in developing a coordinated U.S. 

Government approach to international standards issues. The Committee does not want to see repetitions of the confused U.S. Government response as occurred in the Wireless Local Area Network 

(WLAN) Authentication Privacy Infrastructure (WAPI) and international biofuel standards issues. In the current global competitive 

environment, we need a proactive U.S. Government approach. 

Section 406—Manufacturing extension partnership 

The Committee expects the MEP program to increase its ties to 

community colleges by giving the colleges the information necessary to produce students with the technical skills sets required 

by local and regional small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). 

This is an important component in improving the competitiveness 

of SMEs and the employment opportunities of the American workforce. American SMEs are facing unprecedented global economic 

challenges; SMEs provide good high paying jobs to a significant 

portion of the American workforce. It is imperative that Congress 

do everything possible to ensure American SMEs can rise to these 

challenges. Therefore the Committee expects MEP to implement 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
116 

the Innovative Services Initiative immediately and forcefully. In 

addition, MEP must establish performance metrics and a monitoring regime to ensure this initiative is effective and that taxpayers’ dollars are being spent to their benefit. 

The change in the MEP Center cost share immediately addresses 

the funding issues resulting from a lack of state revenue and the 

difficulty and appropriateness of a fee-based service for SMEs in 

the current economic climate. The Secretary needs to implement 

the revised cost-share provisions beginning in Fiscal Year 2011. 

MEP is based on the concept of a partnership between the Federal 

Government, state governments, and the SME community. In the 

current economic climate, the Federal Government needs to be an 

active and supportive element of this partnership. The Committee 

expects the recommendations contained in the Secretary’s required 

report will inform future decisions concerning the long-term sustainability of MEP Centers. 

Section 407—Bioscience Research Program 

During the past several budget cycles, NIST has announced a 

new initiative in the biosciences. This Committee has strongly supported these initiatives and Congress has always provided the requested funding. It is with regret that the Committee notes that 

NIST has done little to implement these past proposed initiatives. 

Both the FDA and industry have exhorted NIST to develop a more 

vigorous measurement science program to support growth in the 

fields of biologics and personalized medicine. The Committee believes it is necessary to more actively engage NIST’s attention to 

these burgeoning fields which have the potential to revolutionize 

disease treatment. It is time for NIST to move forward with this 

issue. The Committee expects NIST to develop a comprehensive 

and industry-responsive measurement program in this field. The 

Committee will continue close oversight of NIST’s activities. 

The Committee charges the VCAT with reviewing the Bioscience 

Research Program in its Programmatic Planning document. The 

Committee has expanded the VCAT membership to between fifteen 

and twenty in order to meet this new responsibility. The Committee expects the NIST Director to select additional VCAT members with the appropriate bioscience expertise to guide Congress in 

the success and utility of NIST’s efforts in this field. The Committee expects the Bioscience Research Program section of the programmatic planning document be developed in close consultation 

with industry and the appropriate federal agencies, such as the 

FDA and NIH, to ensure that the Program meets the metrology 

needs of industry and does not duplicate, but rather complements, 

similar programs at other federal agencies. 

When establishing university research centers as a component of 

the Bioscience Research Program, the Committee expects the Director to give due consideration to all applications. The Committee 

has held many hearings on the need to encourage participation of 

minority serving institutions in R&D and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) activities of the U.S. Government. The Committee would encourage NIST to expand and 

strengthen its outreach activities to all institutions of higher education not forgetting the role that Predominantly Black InstituVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
117 

tions, Tribal Colleges and Universities, and Hispanic-serving institutions play in the U.S. science and technology enterprise. 

TITLE V—INNOVATION 

Section 502—Federal loan guarantees for innovative technologies in 

manufacturing 

The Committee believes that the loan guarantee program for innovative technologies in manufacturing will provide small- and medium-sized manufacturers access to the capital needed to retool to 

remain globally competitive. The Committee expects that the loan 

guarantee program will also serve an important function in helping 

to transfer promising new manufacturing technologies and processes, including those developed through federally-supported research and development, into manufacturing facilities throughout 

the United States. In addition, the Committee anticipates that the 

program will help in the commercialization of new technologies and 

products dependent on a solid manufacturing base. 

The Committee intends for loan guarantees under the program 

to be made only in conjunction with loans to small and mediumsized manufacturers. Although the Committee has not defined 

small and medium-sized manufacturers, it has charged the Secretary of Commerce with determining the criteria that will be used 

to determine whether a borrower is a small and medium-sized 

manufacturer and including the criteria in the final regulations 

that must be published before any loan guarantee can be made. 

The Committee expects that the Secretary will review the criteria 

that other Federal Government programs use in determining 

whether a business is small or medium-sized and use similar criteria, if appropriate, for purposes of this loan guarantee program. 

In addition, the Committee believes that the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program at the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology may be a useful resource to the Secretary in developing the criteria and for conducting outreach to potential borrowers. 

The Committee recognizes that there are other loan guarantee 

programs at other Federal agencies, including the Small Business 

Administration and the Department of Energy, and that—in some 

cases—small and medium-sized manufacturers may be eligible for 

loan guarantees under these other programs. The Committee is not 

interested in creating duplicative programs and, therefore, has specifically required that the Secretary ensure that the activities carried out under this loan guarantee program are coordinated with, 

and do not duplicate the efforts of, other loan guarantee programs 

within the Federal Government. 

Section 503—Regional Innovation Program 

The Committee believes that regional innovation clusters have 

significant potential for spurring innovation in the United States 

and that the Federal Government can play an important role in 

helping to empower local communities to develop regional innovation clusters. 

Although the Committee recognizes that regional innovation 

clusters may be focused on a wide variety of areas and industries, 

the Committee’s interest in regional innovation clusters is based on 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
118 

its commitment to promoting technological innovation. The Committee expects that, in carrying out this program, the Secretary 

will focus the program on regional innovation clusters centered on 

technological innovation. 

The bill includes examples of the types of activities the Committee feels are appropriate for Federal Government support under 

the grant program. This includes supporting local communities 

that are seeking to develop new regional innovation clusters 

through activities such as inventorying local assets that may provide the foundation for a successful cluster, conducting feasibility 

studies, and carrying out planning activities. It also includes supporting efforts by participants in early stage regional innovation 

clusters to develop and strengthen the connections that are recognized as being critical to successful innovation clusters and to attract other participants to the cluster, particularly those that may 

meet needs not met by existing cluster participants. 

The Committee believes that the success and long-term viability 

of a regional innovation cluster is unlikely to be achieved without 

the support and commitment of a wide range of stakeholders. For 

that reason, the Committee expects that the Secretary will provide 

grant support only to those clusters that are strongly supported by 

State and local governments, the private sector, and other relevant 

stakeholders. 

The Committee feels strongly that innovation and the development of marketable products and technologies is the goal of regional innovation clusters. To this end, the bill requires that applicants include in their applications the extent to which the regional 

innovation cluster is likely to stimulate innovation, and expects 

that the Secretary will provide funding only to those projects that 

the Secretary believes are likely to stimulate innovation. In addition, the Committee feels that it is appropriate for the Secretary 

to fund efforts by regional innovation cluster participants to push 

new technologies and products into the market, which may be facilitated through demonstration, technology transfer, and commercialization activities. 

The Committee fully expects the grant program and the research 

and information program to complement each other. The Committee intends that the information and data gathered from regional innovation clusters supported by grants will be incorporated 

into the research and information program, and that the research 

and best practices developed through the research and information 

program be utilized by participants of regional innovation clusters 

supported by grants. 

The Committee recognizes that several different agencies have 

funded, or are interested in funding, regional innovation cluster activities. The Committee expects that the Secretary of Commerce 

will make every effort to ensure that this program is coordinated 

with, and does not duplicate the efforts of, any programs at other 

Federal agencies. 

TITLE VI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Subtitle A—Office of Science 

In 1977, after decades of historic and nationally significant Federal support for basic research and scientific discovery, what is now 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
119 

known as the Office of Science within the Department of Energy 

was formally established. 

Today it is the single largest supporter of basic research in the 

physical sciences in the United States, providing more than 40 percent of total funding for this vital area of national importance. 

In section 603, the Committee seeks to institutionalize and guide 

the scope of these activities through codification of the Office’s mission and duties, calling particular attention to the Office’s longstanding role in support of science for discovery and for national 

need as well as national scientific user facilities. 

Recognizing that the Office does and should continue to support 

a broad range of S&T activities, from basic and applied research 

to technology development, demonstration, and commercial application, it is the Committee’s expectation that basic research should 

remain a strong focus of these activities, and that the Office should 

continue to strengthen coordination and collaboration with the Department’s applied research and development programs to accelerate the advancement of new energy technologies. 

The Committee believes that the user facilities which the Office 

of Science builds, operates, and maintains are a major asset to the 

research infrastructure and overall competitiveness of the United 

States. The Committee also recognizes the Office’s strong project 

management record, particularly relative to the rest of the Department. As such, and consistent with the recommendations of the report of the U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO–08–641, 

the Committee recommends that DOE: (1) consider adopting department-wide selected practices from the Office of Science’s independent project review process and (2) review and strengthen, as 

appropriate, DOE’s department-wide project management guidance 

to ensure that each project’s technical goals are clearly defined. 

Given the sizable U.S. taxpayer investment in the construction 

of these facilities, the Committee recommends full practicable operation and utilization of each facility following achievement of Critical Decision 4 (CD–4), or approval of the start of operations, the 

final major step in the Office of Science’s standard project management practices. The Committee recognizes that facility operation 

budgets are often the least difficult to cut in order to support other 

Office of Science initiatives. However, the Office should always 

carefully weigh the relatively small cost and high benefit to U.S. 

competitiveness of additional facility operation time and support 

against other potential uses of limited research dollars. 

As part of the Department’s efforts to contribute to the nation’s 

overall competitiveness, the Committee encourages the Secretary to 

develop a clear policy on how to best accommodate the research 

needs of non-proprietary industrial users of Office of Science facilities. These are users that have no need to patent or hide what they 

learn, and so paying the standard full cost recovery rate to retain 

all intellectual property rights can be an unnecessarily high barrier 

for them. Yet because of the nature of their work, such as incremental product development, these users also would not necessarily win time on the facility based on scientific merit, which is 

how the remainder of facility runtime is typically allocated. To 

meet these users’ needs, the Committee encourages consideration 

of the potential to benefit U.S. economic competitiveness as a criterion for allocating non-proprietary runtime. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
120 

The Committee encourages the Secretary of Energy to strengthen 

the role and authorities of the Under Secretary for Science to coordinate and direct energy technology research, development, and 

demonstration activities across the Department, consistent with 

the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

The Committee commends the Office of Science’s Basic Energy 

Sciences Program (BES) for its comprehensive strategic planning 

activities over the past decade to better identify and address research areas with the potential to achieve significant breakthroughs in the development of new energy technologies. The Committee finds that the Energy Frontier Research Centers are a clear 

extension of these strategic planning efforts, and approves of the 

Department’s policy that: (1) none of these Centers are permanent; 

(2) no federal funding can pay for new buildings or facilities to 

house a Center; (3) they must each recompete after a 5 year period 

or be terminated; and (4) any multi-institutional collaboration is eligible to compete. 

The Committee believes that while the High Energy Physics Program may be designated the lead for the entire Office of Science 

in accelerator research and development overall, BES should take 

the lead in developing new enabling technologies for the next generation of light and neutron source facilities. As recommended in 

the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee’s May 2009 report 

on Next-Generation Photon Sources for Grand Challenges in 

Science and Energy, the Committee encourages the Department to 

develop a rigorous research and development program into photon 

sources that may explore ‘‘the temporal evolution of electrons, 

spins, atoms, and chemical reactions, down to the femtosecond 

timescale,’’ and ‘‘. . . spectroscopic and structural imaging of nanoobjects (or nanoscale regions of inhomogeneous materials) with 

nanometer spatial resolution and ultimate spectral resolution.’’ 

These advances may enable significant breakthroughs in advanced 

energy technologies, health care solutions, materials development, 

and information technologies. 

The Committee notes that while the Office of Science manages 

a significant Advanced Scientific Computing Research Program 

(ASCR) to meet its various mission needs, and DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) supports an Advanced Simulation & Computing Program, the Department’s applied energy 

programs have no such equivalent base of computing expertise. The 

Committee believes that it is unnecessary, and potentially counterproductive, to create a separate new computational organization for 

these applied programs. Instead, the Committee believes that 

ASCR should have a lead role in coordinating and carrying out all 

unclassified computational research activities across the Department under the direction of the Under Secretary for Science. The 

Committee is encouraged by ASCR’s recent joint workshops and activities with several of the Department’s applied programs, and believes that an overall plan to address the unique computational research needs of the Offices of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Fossil Energy, 

and Nuclear Energy is warranted, even as it continues to provide 

significant support to the other Office of Science programs. 

The Committee commends the U.S. high energy physics community, and the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel in particular, for 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
121 

setting clear, well-reasoned priorities under four realistic budget 

scenarios in the 2008 Particle Physics Project Prioritization Panel 

(P5) report. Section 108 is largely reflective of this report’s top recommendations, as well as those of other recent reports on particle 

physics research priorities by the National Academy of Sciences. 

The Committee finds that the unknown nature of dark energy is 

one of the most fundamental questions facing the field of physics 

today, and strongly encourages the Department to move forward on 

the study of dark energy through both space-based and land-based 

projects and experiments. The Committee encourages the Department to develop budgets that allow the Office of Science’s High Energy Physics Program to help sustain a robust dark energy research portfolio. The Committee also encourages the Department to 

continue to pursue its collaboration with NASA on a space-based 

dark energy mission, and ensure that the mission is consistent 

with research priorities for such a project as identified by the High 

Energy Physics Advisory Panel. Similarly, the Committee urges the 

Department to explore international partnerships that will further 

its dark energy research capabilities. 

The Committee recognizes the significant progress that the fusion energy research community has made over the past fifteen 

years in understanding the plasma science that will underlie a future fusion reactor. The Committee finds that while the Department is already pursuing the critical next steps in plasma science 

of carrying out experimental research to control and examine the 

dynamics of a burning fusion plasma, a stronger focus should be 

concurrently placed on developing the enabling technologies required to practically harness fusion power for reliable baseload 

electricity. As such, the ITER international fusion project is a necessary but insufficient step on the road to commercial fusion power. 

The Committee encourages the Office of Science’s Fusion Energy 

Sciences Program (FES) to closely collaborate with BES, ASCR, the 

Office of Nuclear Energy, and NNSA, under the direction of the 

Under Secretary for Science, to address mutual needs for technology development in magnetic fusion, inertial fusion, and nextgeneration fission reactor concepts. One focus area of these collaborations should be on identifying, characterizing, and developing 

new materials that can endure the intense neutron and heat fluxes 

expected in these reactor environments. The Committee expects the 

Department to consider these nuclear technology needs as it develops its prioritization plan, described in Section 607(c). This plan is 

expected to follow the example of the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel’s P5 report, referenced above, in providing clear priorities in magnetic fusion research and technology development, including facility construction and decommissioning, under four realistic budget scenarios. These scenarios need not mirror the four 

scenarios that the P5 report considered (i.e. FY10 + inflation, FY09 

+ inflation, budget doubling from FY07 appropriated level by FY17, 

and additional funding above that level), as the Committee recognizes that the construction of ITER may continue to fluctuate and 

distort total FES funding over the next 10 years. Two scenarios 

that the Department should consider analyzing include: (1) flat 

funding at FY10 levels for the non-ITER portion of the FES budget; 

and (2) a path which doubles total funding for FES from the FY07 

appropriated level before FY20. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
122 

The Committee commends the Secretary for requesting a major 

report from the National Academies which will lay the framework 

for a robust inertial fusion research and technology development 

program. However, the Committee believes that the Secretary need 

not wait for the recommendations of this report to begin an explicit, modest version of such a program, as several significant research areas have already been well-identified. These areas include 

new, potentially less expensive ways to achieve ignition, as well as 

the development of new technologies to increase beam repetition 

rates. While, as described above, cross-cutting research areas 

should be strongly considered by the Secretary in developing the 

magnetic fusion prioritization plan, the plan’s budget scenarios are 

not expected to take into account a potentially significant new inertial fusion program, which may not be housed within the Office of 

Science once it is ultimately established. Provided that the Department begins to publicly, explicitly support grant awards in inertial 

fusion research and technology development for energy applications 

on a competitive, merit-reviewed basis, the Committee does not 

currently have a position on where within the Department this new 

program should primarily reside, or whether its activities should be 

distributed through several DOE subagencies. 

The Committee strongly supports the Nuclear Physics (NP) Program’s continued stewardship of isotope development and production for research applications, an activity which was formally transferred from the Office of Nuclear Energy in FY 2009. The Committee encourages NP to continue its outreach and coordination activities with other agencies to meet critical applied research, 

health, and security needs. 

As the Office of Science’s overall funding level follows a doubling 

path, the Committee supports setting priorities based on national 

competitiveness for the levels of increased funding that each program within the agency receives. However, the Committee also 

strongly supports increased funding above inflation for the nuclear 

physics, high energy physics, and fusion energy research programs, 

and does not support funding decreases to these programs outside 

of expected budget profiles for facility construction. 

The Committee recognizes the significant backlog of approved 

but long-delayed infrastructure projects at national laboratories, 

and encourages the Director of the Office of Science to provide the 

necessary expertise and resources to carry out its Infrastructure 

Modernization Initiative Program Management Plan, published in 

September 2008. 

The Committee supports the Deputy Secretary’s efforts to address significant issues resulting from DOE’s regulation of its own 

laboratories for decades. These issues include the inappropriate application of many regulations to all of the DOE laboratories, regardless of whether the lab primarily conducts nuclear security activities or basic experiments in high energy physics. This practice 

can unnecessarily increase the administrative costs of the labs that 

mainly focus on unclassified research, and create overlapping restraints on management activities that can ultimately hinder a 

lab’s ability to contribute to U.S. competitiveness. Lastly, there is 

an inherent conflict of interest in the Department regulating itself. 

The Committee highly recommends that the Deputy Secretary consider external federal regulation of its non-nuclear security laboraVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00128 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
123 

tories through partnerships with the Occupational Health and 

Safety Administration and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

The Committee encourages the Secretary to address the recommendations of the July 2009 report by the National Academy of 

Public Administration regarding the Department’s management of 

human capital. Furthermore, while this report focuses on ways to 

improve DOE’s hiring practices, the Committee also encourages the 

Department to improve its accountability practices for career employees. Specifically, the Committee believes that there should be 

a far more credible and explicit link between job performance and 

continued employment at the Department. 

Section 605—Biological and Environmental Research 

The Committee recognizes the important work of the Biological 

and Environmental Research (BER) Program in the Office of 

Science (SC). This section identifies priority areas for research that 

the Committee believes have special significance given the current 

challenges the country faces with climate change and dependence 

on foreign oil. Although Section 605 is primarily divided into two 

activity areas, this formatting structure is not intended to imply 

that the Department should treat the biological system science activities as distinctly different from the climate and environmental 

science activities. The Committee is not mandating a specific organizational structure. The Committee encourages the Department to 

seek synergistic joint activities within the program and outside the 

program with other offices in SC and Department wide, specifically 

with the Office of Biomass in the Office Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). Furthermore, specific climate research activities should be conducted in collaboration with the United States 

Global Climate Change Research Program (USGCRP). 

The Committee believes the biological system science activities 

are critically important to fundamental science that could create 

breakthroughs in biomass-based liquid transportation fuels, 

biobased products and bioenergy. The Committee intends these 

terms to be interpreted broadly, but activities should be focused on 

the missions of the Department. The term biomass-based liquid 

transportation fuel includes any fuel which can be used in the 

transportation sector. The Committee believes that the Department 

needs to continue to conduct research on ethanol from a variety of 

feedstocks, but should broaden its focus to other fuels which can be 

used in existing infrastructure. Fuels that are chemically identical 

to gasoline, diesel, jet-fuel, hydrogen, and other fuels that are currently in use, but produced from fossil fuels should be researched. 

The Committee recognizes that there are significant challenges 

to achieving the production of sustainably grown biomass for fuels, 

energy, and products. The Committee strongly encourages BER to 

not only focus on energy production from plants, microbes, and 

other biological processes, but also on other environmental characteristics. Water consumption, nutrient uptake, insect resistance, 

climate impacts and other considerations should be part of the 

feedstock selection process for research conducted at BER, and specifically for sequencing at the Joint Genome Institute (JGI). 

The Bioenergy Research Centers (BRCs) established in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 have already contributed to the Department’s mission of ‘‘promoting America’s energy 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
124 

security through reliable, clean, and affordable energy.’’ It is not 

the intent of the Committee to change the current focus of the existing BRCs, which is to produce biomass-based liquid transportation fuels. In fact, the Committee believes that the majority of research conducted at the BRCs should continue to focus on fuels. 

Still, the addition of biobased products in this section is to allow 

for the BRCs to pursue biobased product opportunities that may 

arise from the research they are conducting on fuels. Similar biological processes and techniques used to create fuels can be used 

to produce biobased products. The Committee recognizes the importance of biobased products because they can replace fossil fuel 

based chemicals and materials. Additionally, biobased products, 

when produced in the biorefinery model (pursued in EERE), are 

high value co-products that can make the overall economics of a 

biorefinery more viable. This is the same business model that oil 

companies use today. Therefore, the Committee believes that if a 

BRC has a breakthrough discovery related to a product that is currently being produced using fossil fuels as a feedstock, then the 

BRC should be able to pursue that new biobased product discovery. 

Furthermore, it is the intent of the Committee for the three BRCs 

to be geographically distributed across the country. This is important because biomass feedstocks are different and face different 

growing, harvesting, transportation and conversion needs across 

the country. This requirement for the BRCs in no way implies that 

the merit-reviewed process should be compromised. Additionally, 

the Committee notes that it is up to the discretion of the Director 

on whether or not the existing BRCs should be able to reapply for 

a 5 year period after the first 5 year period is finished. If there is 

a reapplication process, the Committee believes that it should be 

competitive and merit-reviewed. 

The Committee understands the development of the synthetic biology plan will require a systematic approach that involves several 

federal agencies, that is transparent to Congress and the public, 

and that provides opportunities for dialogue and input from the 

various stakeholders who will assist in the development of the 

plan. The Committee recognizes that there are important environmental, health and safety questions associated with the production 

of genetically modified organisms. The Committee believes that 

there is a role for the Federal government to play in the evolving 

synthetic biology industry, but intends for the Department to gather much more information before it fully engages. This is especially 

important as it relates to the possible development of standard 

components, parts and systems produced through synthetic biology. 

Intellectual property rights are a particularly important area of 

concern for synthetic biology. Developing the appropriate types of 

public-private partnerships will be critical in accelerating the development of fuels, power, and products from biological processes. 

The Committee believes the Department’s current efforts to develop the systems biology knowledgebase are very constructive. 

Specific collaboration with the Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program is critical to ensure that there is no duplication of activities. In particular steps taken to ‘‘acquire or otherwise ensure the availability of hardware for biology-specific computation’’ should likely be conducted by ASCR, not BER. Furthermore, the systems biology knowledgebase will only be as useful as 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
125 

the knowledge that it includes. Therefore, the Committee believes 

that as part of the establishment and maintenance of the 

knowledgebase, BER should develop an outreach strategy with the 

purpose of alerting the biology community of this new resource and 

its tools, and a strategy for gathering biology-specific information 

to include in the knowledgebase. 

The Committee finds that the climate and environmental activities of the BER program are vital to the Department’s mission of 

‘‘protecting the environment by providing a responsible resolution 

to the environmental legacy of nuclear weapons production.’’ The 

Committee recognizes the importance of subsurface biogeochemistry research in dealing with the nuclear weapon and energy 

legacy issues of the Department. The cost of cleaning up the Department’s contaminated sites is a tremendous weight on DOE’s 

budget. Therefore, the Committee believes that BER’s current subsurface research activities should be coordinated by the Under Secretary for Science, who will be able to prioritize activities to support and accelerate the decontamination of DOE sites. Furthermore, the Department’s role in climate research has been well established, and the Committee anticipates that the Department will 

continue to offer its technical and scientific experiences and expertise through the United States Global Climate Change Research 

Program (USGCRP). However, the Committee recognizes that several federal agencies contribute to the country’s understanding of 

climate science and that each agency has specific expertise that 

should not be overlooked. 

In particular the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has principal authorities for ocean, atmospheric and 

climate research and observations, as well as for managing ocean 

and marine resources and the coastal zone, including evaluating 

potential environmental impacts of energy development in the 

ocean. NOAA, along with DOE, the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA), and the National Science Foundation (NSF), is also a leader in understanding, observing, modeling 

and predicting climate variability and change. Through the 

USGCRP, the White House Ocean Policy Task Force, and other 

interagency efforts, NOAA works closely with the Department to 

coordinate and leverage oceanic and atmospheric science activities 

and capabilities. The Committee encourages the Department to 

work with NOAA in these areas, as they apply to NOAA’s mission 

responsibilities. 

The Committee believes that observations are essential to improving climate and earth modeling and to expanding and refining 

our understanding of climate variability and change. The Committee recognizes that infrastructure to support observations is 

costly to design, acquire, and maintain and that significant resources are also required to properly document and archive the 

data and information obtained from them. Therefore, the Committee encourages the Department to work closely with the other 

federal agencies in the USGCRP to ensure that the gaps in the 

AmeriFlux Network are filled in with new observation facilities. 

This is especially important as it relates to dynamic terrestrial 

landscapes such as forests which have recently burned or have severe insect infestations. The Committee encourages the Department to continue to upgrade its facilities and develop appropriate 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
126 

tools to understand the flux of other greenhouse gases besides carbon dioxide from terrestrial ecosystems. It is critical that the 

AmeriFlux Network work with other observation networks in the 

United States and in other countries. The Committee anticipates 

the need for better observation data due to increased interest in 

the changing climate and the understanding that there will be regional impacts to these changes. Therefore, the need to have observational data that is distributed throughout the country will be 

very important. 

Furthermore, the Committee finds that research on the changing 

climate is critically important to the global community and must 

be carried out with significant collaboration with international 

partners. As a result, the Committee encourages the Department 

to continue and expand its work with international climate scientists. Work directly related to regional and global climate modeling is especially important as it relates to the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 4th Assessment Report. Increased 

support to meet the growing challenges developing from climate 

change should continue to be a priority to the whole BER program. 

The Committee notes the good work of the BER user facilities including the Joint Genome Institute, the Atmospheric Radiation 

Measurement (ARM) Climate Research Facility (ACRF) and the 

Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL). These facilities are critical assets to the country and continued success is 

dependent on regularly scheduled upgrades. This is also highly important to international competitiveness as other countries such as 

China build their inventory of scientific tools such as sequencing 

machines. 

Subtitle B—Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy 

The Committee intends for ARPA–E to play a variety of roles in 

the nation’s energy technology enterprise. The primary motivations 

for establishing ARPA–E were the need for transformational technologies that improve U.S. energy security and energy efficiency, 

and reduce the environmental impacts of energy. However, both 

the Gathering Storm panel and Congress also advocated for ARPA– 

E to serve as a new tool for the Secretary to use in reinventing Department’s approach to energy R&D. While it may take years to 

see the commercial application of successful ARPA–E technology 

projects, it is the Committee’s view that ARPA–E has already succeeded in providing an innovative organizational model within 

DOE. 

Critics of the DOE’s management of research programs contend 

that the stove-piped structure and bureaucratic culture of DOE 

have not been conducive to the rapid development of cross-cutting 

energy solutions and translating basic research discoveries into 

technology applications for the marketplace. Potentially revolutionary research may be too risky or multi-disciplinary to fit into 

a specific program’s mission at DOE, and the conventional peer review system tends to favor established investigators pursuing incremental advances in well-understood concepts. Many contend 

that, compared with investment, the Department has demonstrated 

limited success in pushing technologies beyond the proverbial ‘‘Valley of Death’’ between government-sponsored R&D and the marketplace. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
127 

The Committee believes that, to pursue truly innovative and 

transformational technology development, ARPA–E must conduct 

projects and be organized in a manner that is fundamentally different from that of the traditional DOE approach. To ensure rapid 

decision-making and minimize transactional requirements, the reporting structure should remain lean and largely self-contained. 

Additionally, staff at ARPA–E are expected to take all appropriate 

measures to ensure that technology projects of particular promise 

can be transferred to the private sector. While the Director may 

choose to enhance the operational capabilities of ARPA–E with additional staff, it is the intent of the Committee for ARPA–E to grow 

only as much as is necessary to carry out its mission. In order for 

ARPA–E to maintain its unique agility and its independence within 

DOE, the Committee believes that both Departmental and ARPA– 

E leadership must be vigilant in avoiding overly-burdensome requirements and impediments imposed by a risk-averse Departmental bureaucracy. 

The Committee believes the overwhelming response to the initial 

Funding Opportunity Announcements is further evidence that technological innovation is not limited to large research universities, 

national laboratories, and industrial firms. The Committee intends 

for ARPA–E to engage non-traditional research performers whenever possible. In the long-term, these activities should result in a 

stronger and more diverse domestic community of researchers and 

technology developers focused on pushing transformational energy 

solutions into the marketplace. This requires ARPA–E to be aggressive in reaching out to academia (beyond the traditional research 

universities), small businesses, and individual inventors, and to explore innovative cost-sharing arrangements that appropriately 

match their financial resources, where applicable. While the Committee does not require that a certain percentage of funds be 

awarded to these entities, it is the Committee’s view that ARPA– 

E should recognize the critical role they play in our nation’s technological competitiveness by seeking opportunities to fund relevant 

activities in these sectors. 

It is well known that small businesses are the engines of our 

economy and the driving force of job creation in the U.S. Particularly relevant to ARPA–E’s mission is the fact that the smallest 

businesses—those with fewer than 25 employees—are the greatest 

sources of technology innovation in the United States. This was affirmed in a November 2008 study commissioned by the Small Business Administration (SBA). ‘‘An Analysis of Small Business Patents 

by Industry and Firm Size’’ noted that: ‘‘Small businesses develop 

more patents per employee than larger businesses, with the smallest firms, those with fewer than 25 employees, producing the greatest number of patents per employee. Furthermore, small firm patents tend to be more significant than large firm patents, outperforming them in a number of categories including growth, citation 

impact, and originality.’’ Furthermore, the report identified alternative energy as one of 11 of the most promising emerging industries. For example, three of four of the most patent-intensive firms 

active in battery manufacturing are small businesses. The Committee seeks to further ensure America’s technological leadership 

by empowering ARPA–E to actively search for, accept solicitations 

from, and evaluate ideas from America’s richest and most vibrant 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
128 

source of talented individuals among our smallest business entrepreneurs. 

The Committee also believes that ARPA–E should mirror 

DARPA’s flexibility and openness in another important aspect. 

Thus far, ARPA–E has issued one broad Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA), and two FOA’s focused on specific technology 

areas. All had limited timeframes for applicants to submit their 

proposals. DARPA, in addition to the standard calls for specific proposals, issues Broad Agency Announcements (BAA) that remain 

open for extended periods of time and are not limited to a narrow 

field of research or technology. This allows Program Directors within DARPA to review and fund proposals that may be very promising but do not otherwise fit within the scope of a more specific 

funding opportunity. It is the Committee’s intent for ARPA–E to be 

as flexible as possible, including through the usage of a rolling solicitation similar to DARPA’s Broad Agency Announcement, as long 

as it is consistent with the mission of ARPA–E and all federal contracting regulations. 

Subtitle C—Energy Innovation Hubs 

The Committee on Science and Technology believes that the Energy Innovation Hubs program is an important research initiative 

that will provide the Department of Energy with a unique and effective means to foster innovative and advanced energy technologies. The Committee encourages the Secretary of Energy to 

consider any application for a Hub award that may not have all of 

its activities centrally located, but, through modern information 

and communication technologies, are able to replicate the type of 

synergies between individuals that can be fostered through activities conducted at a single location. The Committee recognizes the 

value in a centrally located Hub, but believes that an effort to conduct activities under one roof should not be undertaken to the detriment of the science to be conducted. 

In carrying out the selection of a Hub award winner, the Secretary should give priority consideration to consortia in which 1 or 

more members is an institution described in Section 632(g). However, this section should not be interpreted to mean that a Hub 

must be awarded to a consortium including such one of these institutions. Nor should it be construed that Section 623(g) requires 

that a Hub must be located at one of these institutions. 

The Committee believes that the exception to the prohibition on 

construction in Section 632(e)(2) is a necessary exclusion to allow 

for renovations to existing facilities or construction of a test bed 

when those activities are required for the undertaking of necessary 

research by the Hub to achieve its mission. Without this exception, 

a Hub would be unable to build test beds that might be necessary 

for testing innovative technologies in real world situations even if 

limited in scale and scope. In the case of a building innovations 

Hub this is of particular interest. The Committee’s concern that a 

Hub award winner may endeavor to misuse funding for the construction of a new facility for a purpose other than the research of 

the specified technology focus resulted in the prohibition on construction language in Section 632(e)(1). The Committee does not intend that the exception to this prohibition in Section 632(e)(2) 

should be applied for any reason other than for those instances 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
129 

where a Hub must build a test bed or renovate its existing facilities. The Committee commends the Secretary to take all measures 

to ensure that the Oversight Board will examine any plan for renovation or test bed construction and ensure the scope and scale of 

the undertaking is limited to that which is necessary for the research to be conducted. The Committee urges the Secretary to appoint members to an Oversight Board pursuant to this title that in 

addition to other qualifications required to effectively administer 

the Energy Innovations Hubs program, will have the expertise and 

skill to evaluate any renovations or test bed construction undertaken by a Hub. This evaluation should ensure that all renovations 

or test beds are necessary to satisfy the mission of the Hub and are 

not a means to create a long-term facility for another purpose. Furthermore, any research to be done at a test bed proposed by a Hub 

should be evaluated to ensure that it could not be conducted in a 

more cost-efficient manner. 

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. 5166 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. 5166 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

H.R. 5116—America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 

Summary: H.R. 5116 would authorize appropriations totaling 

about $86 billion over the 2011–2015 period for several agencies to 

support scientific research, industrial innovation, and certain educational activities. Assuming appropriation of the necessary 

amounts, CBO estimates that implementing the legislation would 

cost about $65 billion over the 2011–2015 period, and about $20 

billion after 2015. Enacting the legislation could increase revenues 

(from certain fees) and associated direct spending; therefore, payas-you-go procedures would apply. However, CBO estimates that 

the net effects would be negligible for each year. 

H.R. 5116 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 5116 is shown in the following table. The costs 

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

space, and technology), 270 (energy), 370 (commerce and housing 

credit), 450 (community and regional development), and 800 (general government). 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
130 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2011–2015 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

National Science Foundation: 

Research and Related Activities: 

Authorization Level ............................. 6,020 6,496 7,009 7,562 8,160 35,247 

Estimated Outlays .............................. 1,084 3,758 5,379 6,346 7,148 23,715 

Education and Humman Resources: 

Authorization Level ............................. 945 1,020 1,100 1,187 1,281 5,533 

Estimated Outlays .............................. 113 500 786 989 1,115 3,504 

Other National Science Foundation Activities: 

Authorization Level ............................. 520 615 659 687 720 3,200 

Estimated Outlays .............................. 327 466 581 657 709 2,740 

Subtotal, National Science Foundation: 

Authorization Level ............................. 7,485 8,131 8,768 9,436 10,161 43,980 

Estimated Outlays .............................. 1,524 4,724 6,746 7,993 8,972 29,958 

Department of Energy: 

Office of Science: 

Authorization Level ............................. 5,247 5,614 6,007 6,428 6,878 30,174 

Estimated Outlays .............................. 2,886 4,662 5,775 6,180 6,612 26,115 

Other Department of Energy Activities: 

Estimated Authorization Level ............ 530 718 943 1,171 1,384 4,746 

Estimated Outlays .............................. 292 554 814 1,035 1,254 3,948 

Subtotal, Department of Energy: 

Estimated Authorization Level ............ 5,777 6,332 6,950 7,599 8,262 34,920 

Estimated Outlays .............................. 3,177 5,216 6,589 7,214 7,866 30,062 

National Institute of Standards and Technology: 

Scientific and Technical Research: 

Authorization Level ............................. 620 657 697 739 783 3,495 

Estimated Outlays .............................. 477 636 687 728 772 3,300 

Industrial Technology Services: 

Authorization Level ............................. 246 250 261 264 276 1,297 

Estimated Outlays .............................. 39 149 220 251 265 924 

Facility Construction and Maintenance: 

Authorization Level ............................. 125 85 122 124 133 589 

Estimated Outlays .............................. 15 28 47 86 100 275 

Subtotal, National Institute of Standards 

and Technology: 

Authorization Level ............................. 991 992 1,080 1,126 1,192 5,382 

Estimated Outlays .............................. 532 813 953 1,064 1,137 4,499 

Economic Development Administration: 

Regional Innovation Cluster Program: 

Estimated Authorization Level ............ 200 200 200 200 200 1,000 

Estimated Outlays .............................. 10 54 98 154 194 510 

Loan Guarantee Program: 

Authorization Level ............................. 50 50 50 50 50 250 

Estimated Outlays .............................. 10 40 47 50 50 197 

Subtotal, Economic Development Agency: 

Estimated Authorization Level ............ 250 250 250 250 250 1,250 

Estimated Outlays .............................. 20 94 145 204 244 707 

Office of Science and Technology Policy: 

Estimated Authorization Level ............ 10 10 10 10 10 50 

Estimated Outlays .............................. 9 10 10 10 10 49 

Total Changes: 

Estimated Authorization Level ............ 14,513 15,716 17,058 18,412 19,875 85,582 

Estimated Outlays .............................. 5,262 10,857 14,442 16,485 18,229 65,275 

Note: Components May not sum to totals because of rounding. 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes H.R. 5116 

will be enacted in 2010 and that the necessary amounts will be appropriated for each fiscal year. Estimated outlays are based on historical spending patterns for existing and similar programs. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
131 

National Science Foundation (NSF) Programs 

H.R. 5116 would authorize appropriations totaling nearly $44 billion over the 2011–2015 period for the National Science Foundation 

to carry out various activities to support basic scientific research 

and education. 

Research and Related Activities. The bill would authorize the ap- propriation of $35.2 billion over the 2011–2015 period for programs 

under NSF’s research and related activities account. In 2010, those 

programs received an appropriation of $5.6 billion to support most 

of NSF’s basic science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 

(STEM) research. Based on historical spending patterns, CBO estimates that this provision would cost $23.7 billion over the 2011– 

2015 period and $11.5 billion after 2015. 

Education and Human Resources. The legislation would author- ize the appropriation of $5.5 billion over the 2011–2015 period for 

NSF’s education and human resources programs. In 2010, those 

programs received an appropriation of $873 million to support and 

expand information regarding STEM and in the workforce in those 

fields. Based on historical spending patterns, CBO estimates that 

implementing this provision would cost $3.5 billion over the 2011– 

2015 period and about $2 billion after 2015. 

Other NSF Activities. H.R. 5116 would authorize the appropria- tion of $3.2 billion over the 2011–2015 period for other NSF activities, including agency operations and award management ($1.9 billion), major research equipment and facilities construction ($1.2 billion), the Office of the Inspector General ($80 million), the Office 

of the National Science Board ($26 million), and a pilot program 

($12 million) to award cash incentives for private entities to develop certain innovative technologies. In 2010, NSF received appropriations totaling $436 million for those activities. Based on historical spending patterns, CBO estimates that implementing those 

provisions would cost $2.7 billion over the 2011–2015 period and 

about $500 million after 2015, assuming appropriation of the specified amounts. 

Department of Energy (DOE) Programs 

CBO estimates that H.R. 5116 would authorize the appropriation of about $35 billion over the 2011–2015 period for the Department 

of Energy to carry out various activities to support scientific research and education. 

Office of Science. The bill would authorize the appropriation of $30.2 billion over the 2011–2015 period for DOE research programs 

in basic energy sciences, biological and environmental sciences, and 

computational science. In addition, those funds would be used by 

DOE to mange 10 national laboratories and to support certain education initiatives. In 2010, DOE received appropriations totaling 

$4.9 billion to carry out those activities. Assuming appropriation of 

the specified amounts, CBO estimates that implementing this provision would cost $26.1 billion over the 2011–2015 period and $4.1 

billion after 2015. 

Other DOE Activities. The legislation would authorize appropriations totaling $4.3 billion over the 2011–2015 period for the Advanced Research Project Agency-Energy ($3.2 billion), which funds 

the research and development of projects with potential energy and 

environmental applications; the energy innovation hub program 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
132 

($860 million), which would fund research teams working to develop innovative technologies with practical industry applications; 

and the energy applied science talent expansion program ($176 million), Which would provide grants to higher education institutions 

to enhance STEM education. Assuming appropriation of the specified amounts, CBO estimate that implementing those provisions 

would cost almost $3.6 billion over the 2011–2015 period and about 

$750 million after 2015. 

H.R. 5116 also would authorize the appropriation of such sums 

as are necessary to reauthorize and expand certain STEM educational programs, which would support students, teachers, and researchers at secondary and post-secondary institutions and to establish the cooperative research and development fund, which 

would cover the federal share of research and development agreements between the federal government and nonfederal entities. 

Based on information from DOE and assuming appropriation of the 

necessary amounts, CBO estimates that implementing those programs would cost $481 million over the 2011–2015 period and $80 

million after 2015. 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Programs 

H.R. 5116 would authorize the appropriation of almost $5.4 billion over the 2011–2015 period for programs administered by the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology. 

Scientific and Technical Research. The bill would authorize the 

appropriation of about $3.5 billion over the 2011–2015 period for 

NIST’s Scientific and Technical Research Services program. The 

program supports NIST’s laboratories and technical programs as 

well as national research facilities, including the Center for 

Nanoscale Science and Technology. Assuming appropriation of the 

specified amounts, CBO estimates that implementing this provision 

would cost $3.3 billion over the 2011–2015 period and about $200 

million after 2015. 

Industrial Technology Services. The legislation would authorize 

the appropriation of $1.3 billion over the 2011–2015 period to operate programs under the industrial technology services account. 

Those amounts would be used primarily to fund two programs, the 

manufacturing extension partnership ($800 million), which provides technical assistance and training to small manufacturers, and 

the Technology Innovation Program ($400 million), which provides 

grants to small- and medium-sized businesses to support research 

and development on emerging technologies. Additional amounts 

would be authorized for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality 

Awards Program ($50 million). Assuming appropriation of the specified amounts, CBO estimates that implementing this provision 

would cost $924 million over the 2011–2015 period and $373 million after 2015. 

Facility Construction and Maintenance. H.R. 5116 would authorize the appropriation of $589 million over the 2011–2015 period for 

construction and maintenance of NIST buildings and laboratories. 

Assuming appropriation of the specified amounts, CBO estimates 

that implementing this provision would cost $275 million over the 

2011–2015 period and $314 million after 2015. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
133 

Economic Development Administration (EDA) Programs 

H.R. 5116 would authorize appropriations totaling about $1.3 billion over the 2011–2015 period for two Economic Development Administration programs to support the development of innovative 

technologies to aid small- and medium-sized businesses. 

Regional Innovation Cluster Program. The bill would authorize 

the appropriation of whatever amounts are necessary to support regional innovation clusters (geographically related groups of businesses focused on developing technologies for a particular industry 

sector). Under the bill, EDA would provide technical assistance and 

competitive grants to support the development of regional innovation clusters. The bill also would require EDA to contract with the 

National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to evaluate the effectiveness 

of the program. Based on information from EDA and NAS, CBO estimates that implementing this provision would cost $510 million 

over the 2011–2015 period and $490 million after 2015. 

Loan Guarantee Program. The legislation would establish an 

EDA program to provide loan guarantees to small- and mediumsized businesses to support the development of innovative manufacturing technologies. Under the Federal Credit Reform Act, the 

budgetary impact of the program would be measured in terms of 

the projected subsidy cost to provide such guarantees. (The subsidy 

cost is the estimated long-term cost—the value of defaults less recoveries—to the government of the loan guarantee calculated on a 

net-present-value basis, excluding administrative costs.) The bill 

would authorize $50 million a year over the 2011–2015 period for 

the subsidy cost of providing loan guarantees under the program. 

CBO estimates that the program would cost about $200 million 

over the 2011–2015 period. Based on information from Standard 

and Poor’s regarding the cumulative default and recovery rates for 

bonds with similar risk profiles, CBO estimates that the subsidy 

rate for the program would be between 15 percent and 20 percent. 

Therefore, we estimate that the program would allow EDA to guarantee roughly $300 mullion in loans each year over the 2011–2015 

period. 

The legislation also would authorize EDA to convert those loan 

guarantees into direct loans if borrowers were in risk of imminent 

default. The Congress would have to appropriate additional funds 

to cover the subsidy cost of any such direct loans prior to those 

loans being disbursed. CBO expects that the Secretary would use 

this authority infrequently and that any direct loan made under 

this authority would have a very high subsidy rate. Furthermore, 

CBO expects that it would be infeasible for the Congress to appropriate the necessary funds to convert a loan guarantee in imminent 

danger of default to a direct federal loan once the Secretary has 

chosen to exercise that authority. Therefore, we estimate that this 

provision would have no significant cost. 

Office of Science and Technology Policy 

Under H.R. 5116, the Office of Science and Technology Policy 

would be required to submit additional reports to the Congress and 

prepare planning documents regarding nanotechnology and networking and research on information technology. Based on information from that office, the coordinating agencies, and the member 

agencies, as well as the cost of similar provisions, CBO estimates 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
134 

that implementing those provisions would cost about $50 million 

over the 2011–2015 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. 

Pay-as-you-go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act 

of 2010 establishes budget reporting and enforcement procedures 

for legislation affecting direct spending or revenues. H.R. 5116 

would allow EDA to collect fees to cover administrative costs related to a loan guarantee program to provide loans to small- and 

medium-sized businesses to support the development of innovative 

manufacturing technologies. The collection of those fees would increase revenues and associated direct spending; therefore, pay-asyou-go procedures would apply. However CBO estimates that any 

increase in revenues from fees would be offset by similar increases 

in direct spending for administrative expenses. The net budgetary 

changes that are subject to pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in 

the following table. 

CBO Estimate of Pay-As-You-Go Effects for H.R. 5116, the America COMPETES Reauthorization 

Act of 2010, as ordered reported by the House Committee on Science and Technology on April 

28, 2010 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2010– 

2015 

2010– 

2020 

NET INCREASE OR DECREASE (-) IN THE DEFICIT 

Statutory Pay-As-YouGo Impact ............. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 5116 contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA. Public colleges, universities, and research centers could 

benefit from grants authorized by the bill. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Jeff LaFave (NSF, DOE, 

NIST, EDA programs) Matthew Pickford (Office of Science and 

Technology Policy programs); Impact on State, Local, and Tribal 

Governments: Ryan Miller; Impact on the Private Sector: Amy 

Petz. 

Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 

XI. COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4 

H.R. 5116 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 goal of H.R. 5116 

is to reauthorize the National Science Foundation, National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Office of Science at the Department of Energy, and the Advanced Research Projects Agency— 

Energy. H.R. 5116 also authorizes new programs at the DepartVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00140 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
135 

ment of Energy and the Department of Commerce that also promote innovation and improve the competitiveness of the United 

States. 

XIV. CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

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

grants Congress the authority to enact H.R. 5116. 

XV. FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

The functions of the advisory committees authorized in H.R. 5116 

are not currently being nor could they be performed by one or more 

agencies or by enlarging the mandate of another existing advisory 

committee. 

XVI. CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

The Committee finds that H.R. 5116 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. 5116 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9 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. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

21ST CENTURY NANOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND 

DEVELOPMENT ACT 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 2. NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY PROGRAM. 

(a) * * * 

(b) PROGRAM ACTIVITIES.—The activities of the Program shall include— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(5) ensuring United States global leadership in the development and application of nanotechnology;¿ 

(5) ensuring United States global leadership in the development and application of nanotechnology, including through coordination and leveraging Federal investments with nanotechVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00141 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
136 

nology research, development, and technology transition initiatives supported by the States; 

* * * * * * * 

(c) PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.—The National Science and Technology Council shall oversee the planning, management, and coordination of the Program. The Council, itself or through an appropriate subgroup it designates or establishes, shall— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(4) develop, within 12 months after the date of enactment 

of this Act, and update every 3 years thereafter, a strategic 

plan to guide the activities described under subsection (b), 

meet the goals, priorities, and anticipated outcomes of the participating agencies, and describe— 

ø(A) how the Program will move results out of the laboratory and into application for the benefit of society; 

ø(B) the Program’s support for long-term funding for 

interdisciplinary research and development in nanotechnology; and 

ø(C) the allocation of funding for interagency nanotechnology projects;¿ 

(4) develop, within 12 months after the date of enactment of 

the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 

2010, and update every 3 years thereafter, a strategic plan to 

guide the activities described under subsection (b) that specifies 

near-term and long-term objectives for the Program, the anticipated time frame for achieving the near-term objectives, and the 

metrics to be used for assessing progress toward the objectives, 

and that describes— 

(A) how the Program will move results out of the laboratory and into applications for the benefit of society, including through cooperation and collaborations with nanotechnology research, development, and technology transition 

initiatives supported by the States; 

(B) how the Program will encourage and support interdisciplinary research and development in nanotechnology; 

and 

(C) proposed research in areas of national importance in 

accordance with the requirements of section 105 of the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2010; 

* * * * * * * 

(d) ANNUAL REPORT.—The Council shall prepare an annual report, to be submitted to the Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives 

Committee on Science, and other appropriate committees, at the 

time of the President’s budget request to Congress, that includes— 

(1) the Program budget, for the previous fiscal year, for each 

agency that participates in the Program, including a breakout 

of spending for the development and acquisition of research facilities and instrumentation, for each program component area, 

and for all activities pursuant to subsection (b)(10); 

ø(1)¿ (2) the Program budget, for the current fiscal year, for 

each agency that participates in the Program, including a 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
137 

breakout of spending for the development and acquisition of research facilities and instrumentation, for each program component area, and for all activities pursuant to subsection (b)(10); 

ø(2)¿ (3) the proposed Program budget for the next fiscal 

year, for each agency that participates in the Program, including a breakout of spending for the development and acquisition 

of research facilities and instrumentation, for each program 

component area, and for all activities pursuant to subsection 

(b)(10); 

ø(3)¿ (4) an analysis of the progress made toward achieving 

the goals and priorities established for the Program; 

ø(4)¿ (5) an analysis of the extent to which the Program has 

incorporated the recommendations of the Advisory Panel; and 

ø(5)¿ (6) an assessment of how Federal agencies are implementing the plan described in subsection (c)(7), and a description of the amount of Small Business Innovative Research and 

Small Business Technology Transfer Research funds supporting the plan. 

(e) STANDARDS SETTING.—The agencies participating in the Program shall support the activities of committees involved in the development of standards for nanotechnology and may reimburse the 

travel costs of scientists and engineers who participate in activities 

of such committees. 

SEC. 3. PROGRAM COORDINATION. 

(a) * * * 

ø(b) FUNDING.—The National Nanotechnology Coordination Office shall be funded through interagency funding in accordance 

with section 631 of Public Law 108–7.¿ 

(b) FUNDING.—(1) The operation of the National Nanotechnology 

Coordination Office shall be supported by funds from each agency 

participating in the Program. The portion of such Office’s total 

budget provided by each agency for each fiscal year shall be in the 

same proportion as the agency’s share of the total budget for the 

Program for the previous fiscal year, as specified in the report required under section 2(d)(1). 

(2) The annual report under section 2(d) shall include— 

(A) a description of the funding required by the National 

Nanotechnology Coordination Office to perform the functions 

specified under subsection (a) for the next fiscal year by category of activity, including the funding required to carry out the 

requirements of section 2(b)(10)(D), subsection (d) of this section, and section 5; 

(B) a description of the funding required by such Office to 

perform the functions specified under subsection (a) for the current fiscal year by category of activity, including the funding required to carry out the requirements of subsection (d); and 

(C) the amount of funding provided for such Office for the 

current fiscal year by each agency participating in the Program. 

* * * * * * * 

(d) PUBLIC INFORMATION.—(1) The National Nanotechnology Coordination Office shall develop and maintain a database accessible 

by the public of projects funded under the Environmental, Health, 

and Safety, the Education and Societal Dimensions, and the Nanomanufacturing program component areas, or any successor program 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
138 

component areas, including a description of each project, its source 

of funding by agency, and its funding history. For the Environmental, Health, and Safety program component area, or any successor program component area, projects shall be grouped by major 

objective as defined by the research plan required under section 

103(b) of the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 

2010. For the Education and Societal Dimensions program component area, or any successor program component area, the projects 

shall be grouped in subcategories of— 

(A) education in formal settings; 

(B) education in informal settings; 

(C) public outreach; and 

(D) ethical, legal, and other societal issues. 

(2) The National Nanotechnology Coordination Office shall develop, maintain, and publicize information on nanotechnology facilities supported under the Program, and may include information on 

nanotechnology facilities supported by the States, that are accessible 

for use by individuals from academic institutions and from industry. The information shall include at a minimum the terms and 

conditions for the use of each facility, a description of the capabilities of the instruments and equipment available for use at the facility, and a description of the technical support available to assist 

users of the facility. 

SEC. 4. ADVISORY PANEL. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The President shall establish øor designate¿ a 

National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel as a distinct entity. The 

Advisory Panel shall form a subpanel with membership having specific qualifications tailored to enable it to carry out the requirements 

of subsection (c)(7). 

(b) QUALIFICATIONS.—The Advisory Panel established øor designated¿ by the President under subsection (a) shall consist primarily of members from academic institutions and industry. Members of the Advisory Panel shall be qualified to provide advice and 

information on nanotechnology research, development, demonstrations, education, technology transfer, commercial application, or societal and ethical concerns. In selecting øor designating¿ an Advisory Panel, the President may also seek and give consideration to 

recommendations from the Congress, industry, the scientific community (including the National Academy of Sciences, scientific professional societies, and academia), the defense community, State 

and local governments, regional nanotechnology programs, and 

other appropriate organizations. At least one member of the Advisory Panel shall be an individual employed by and representing a 

minority-serving institution. 

* * * * * * * 

øSEC. 5. TRIENNIAL EXTERNAL REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY PROGRAM. 

ø(a) IN GENERAL.—The Director of the National Nanotechnology 

Coordination Office shall enter into an arrangement with the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences to 

conduct a triennial evaluation of the Program, including— 

ø(1) an evaluation of the technical accomplishments of the 

Program, including a review of whether the Program has 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
139 

achieved the goals under the metrics established by the Council; 

ø(2) a review of the Program’s management and coordination 

across agencies and disciplines; 

ø(3) a review of the funding levels at each agency for the 

Program’s activities and the ability of each agency to achieve 

the Program’s stated goals with that funding; 

ø(4) an evaluation of the Program’s success in transferring 

technology to the private sector; 

ø(5) an evaluation of whether the Program has been successful in fostering interdisciplinary research and development; 

ø(6) an evaluation of the extent to which the Program has 

adequately considered ethical, legal, environmental, and other 

appropriate societal concerns; 

ø(7) recommendations for new or revised Program goals; 

ø(8) recommendations for new research areas, partnerships, 

coordination and management mechanisms, or programs to be 

established to achieve the Program’s stated goals; 

ø(9) recommendations on policy, program, and budget 

changes with respect to nanotechnology research and development activities; 

ø(10) recommendations for improved metrics to evaluate the 

success of the Program in accomplishing its stated goals; 

ø(11) a review of the performance of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office and its efforts to promote access to 

and early application of the technologies, innovations, and expertise derived from Program activities to agency missions and 

systems across the Federal Government and to United States 

industry; 

ø(12) an analysis of the relative position of the United States 

compared to other nations with respect to nanotechnology research and development, including the identification of any 

critical research areas where the United States should be the 

world leader to best achieve the goals of the Program; and 

ø(13) an analysis of the current impact of nanotechnology on 

the United States economy and recommendations for increasing its future impact. 

ø(b) STUDY ON MOLECULAR SELF-ASSEMBLY.—As part of the first 

triennial review conducted in accordance with subsection (a), the 

National Research Council shall conduct a one-time study to determine the technical feasibility of molecular self-assembly for the 

manufacture of materials and devices at the molecular scale. 

ø(c) STUDY ON THE RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT OF NANOTECHNOLOGY.—As part of the first triennial review conducted in accordance with subsection (a), the National Research Council shall conduct a one-time study to assess the need for standards, guidelines, 

or strategies for ensuring the responsible development of nanotechnology, including, but not limited to— 

ø(1) self-replicating nanoscale machines or devices; 

ø(2) the release of such machines in natural environments; 

ø(3) encryption; 

ø(4) the development of defensive technologies; 

ø(5) the use of nanotechnology in the enhancement of human 

intelligence; and 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
140 

ø(6) the use of nanotechnology in developing artificial intelligence. 

ø(d) EVALUATION TO BE TRANSMITTED TO CONGRESS.—The Director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office shall transmit the results of any evaluation for which it made arrangements 

under subsection (a) to the Advisory Panel, the Senate Committee 

on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Science upon receipt. The first such 

evaluation shall be transmitted no later than June 10, 2005, with 

subsequent evaluations transmitted to the Committees every 3 

years thereafter.¿ 

SEC. 5. TRIENNIAL EXTERNAL REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY PROGRAM. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Director of the National Nanotechnology 

Coordination Office shall enter into an arrangement with the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a triennial review of the Program. The Director shall ensure 

that the arrangement with the National Research Council is concluded in order to allow sufficient time for the reporting requirements of subsection (b) to be satisfied. Each triennial review shall 

include an evaluation of the— 

(1) research priorities and technical content of the Program, 

including whether the allocation of funding among program 

component areas, as designated according to section 2(c)(2), is 

appropriate; 

(2) effectiveness of the Program’s management and coordination across agencies and disciplines, including an assessment of 

the effectiveness of the National Nanotechnology Coordination 

Office; 

(3) Program’s scientific and technological accomplishments 

and its success in transferring technology to the private sector; 

and 

(4) adequacy of the Program’s activities addressing ethical, 

legal, environmental, and other appropriate societal concerns, 

including human health concerns. 

(b) EVALUATION TO BE TRANSMITTED TO CONGRESS.—The National Research Council shall document the results of each triennial 

review carried out in accordance with subsection (a) in a report that 

includes any recommendations for ways to improve the Program’s 

management and coordination processes and for changes to the Program’s objectives, funding priorities, and technical content. Each report shall be submitted to the Director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, who shall transmit it to the Advisory 

Panel, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of 

the Senate, and the Committee on Science and Technology of the 

House of Representatives not later than September 30 of every third 

year, with the first report due September 30, 2010. 

(c) FUNDING.—Of the amounts provided in accordance with section 3(b)(1), the following amounts shall be available to carry out 

this section: 

(1) $500,000 for fiscal year 2010. 

(2) $500,000 for fiscal year 2011. 

(3) $500,000 for fiscal year 2012. 

* * * * * * * 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
141 

SEC. 10. DEFINITIONS. 

In this Act: 

(1) * * * 

ø(2) NANOTECHNOLOGY.—The term ‘‘nanotechnology’’ means 

the science and technology that will enable one to understand, 

measure, manipulate, and manufacture at the atomic, molecular, and supramolecular levels, aimed at creating materials, 

devices, and systems with fundamentally new molecular organization, properties, and functions.¿ 

(2) NANOTECHNOLOGY.—The term ‘‘nanotechnology’’ means 

the science and technology that will enable one to understand, 

measure, manipulate, and manufacture at the nanoscale, aimed 

at creating materials, devices, and systems with fundamentally 

new properties or functions. 

* * * * * * * 

(7) NANOSCALE.—The term ‘‘nanoscale’’ means one or more 

dimensions of between approximately 1 and 100 nanometers. 

* * * * * * * 

HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING ACT OF 1991 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 3. PURPOSES. 

The purposes of this Act are to help ensure the continued leadership of the United States in øhigh-performance computing¿ networking and information technology and its applications by— 

(1) expanding Federal support for research, development, 

and application of øhigh-performance computing¿ networking 

and information technology in order to— 

(A) expand the number of researchers, educators, and 

students with training in øhigh-performance computing¿ 

networking and information technology and access to 

øhigh-performance computing¿ networking and information technology resources; 

* * * * * * * 

(F) provide for the application of øhigh-performance computing¿ networking and information technology to Grand 

Challenges; 

* * * * * * * 

(2) improving the interagency planning and coordination of 

Federal research and development on øhigh-performance computing and¿ networking and information technology and maximizing the effectiveness of the Federal Government’s øhighperformance computing network¿ networking and information 

technology research and development programs; 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS. 

As used in this Act, the term— 

(1) ‘‘cyber-physical systems’’ means physical or engineered systems whose networking and information technology functions 

and physical elements are deeply integrated and are actively 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
142 

connected to the physical world through sensors, actuators, or 

other means to perform monitoring and control functions; 

ø(1)¿ (2) ‘‘Director’’ means the Director of the Office of 

Science and Technology Policy; 

ø(2)¿ (3) ‘‘Grand Challenge’’ means a fundamental problem 

in science or engineering, with broad economic and scientific 

impact, whose solution will require the application of high-performance computing resources and multidisciplinary teams of 

researchers; 

ø(3)¿ (4) ‘‘øhigh-performance computing¿ networking and information technology’’ means advanced computing, communications, and information technologies, including øsupercomputer¿ 

high-end computing systems, high-capacity and high-speed networks, special purpose and experimental systems, applications 

and systems software, and the management of large data sets; 

ø(4)¿ (5) ‘‘Internet’’ means the international computer network of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable data networks; 

ø(5)¿ (6) ‘‘Network’’ means a computer ønetwork referred to 

as the National Research and Education Network established 

under section 102;¿ network, including advanced computer networks of Federal agencies and departments; 

ø(6)¿ (7) ‘‘Program’’ means the øNational High-Performance 

Computing Program¿ networking and information technology 

research and development program described in section 101; 

and 

ø(7)¿ (8) ‘‘Program Component Areas’’ means the major subject areas under which related individual projects and activities carried out under the Program are grouped. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE I—øHIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING¿ NETWORKING AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 

SEC. 101. NATIONAL øHIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING¿ NETWORKING AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH 

AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM. 

(a) øNATIONAL HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING¿ NETWORKING

AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.—(1) The President shall implement a øNational High-Performance Computing Program¿ networking and information technology research and development program, which shall— 

(A) provide for long-term basic and applied research on 

øhigh-performance computing, including networking¿ networking and information technology; 

(B) provide for research and development on, and demonstration of, technologies to advance the capacity and capabilities of 

øhigh-performance¿ high-end computing and networking systems, and related software; 

(C) provide for sustained access by the research community 

throughout the United States to øhigh-performance¿ high-end 

computing and networking systems that are among the most 

advanced in the world in terms of performance in solving sciVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00148 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
143 

entific and engineering problems, including provision for technical support for users of such systems; 

* * * * * * * 

(G) provide for the technical support of, and research and development on, øhigh-performance¿ high-end computing systems and software required to address Grand Challenges; 

(H) provide for educating and training additional undergraduate and graduate students in software engineering, computer science, computer and network security, applied mathematics, library and information science, and computational 

science; øand¿ 

(I) provide for improving the security of computing and networking systems, including Federal systems, including providing for research required to establish security standards 

and practices for these systemsø.¿; 

(J) provide for increased understanding of the scientific principles of cyber-physical systems and improve the methods available for the design, development, and operation of cyber-physical systems that are characterized by high reliability, safety, 

and security; and 

(K) provide for research and development on human-computer 

interactions, visualization, and information management. 

(2) The Director shall— 

(A) establish the goals and priorities for Federal øhigh-performance computing¿ networking and information technology 

research, ødevelopment, networking,¿ development, and other 

activities; 

* * * * * * * 

(C) provide for interagency coordination of Federal øhighperformance computing¿ networking and information technology research, ødevelopment, networking,¿ development, and 

other activities undertaken pursuant to the Program; 

* * * * * * * 

(E) encourage and monitor the efforts of the agencies participating in the Program to allocate the level of resources and 

management attention necessary to ensure that the strategic 

plan under subsection (e) is developed and executed effectively 

and that the objectives of the Program are met; 

ø(E)¿ (F) develop and maintain a research, development, and 

deployment roadmap covering all States and regions for the 

provision of øhigh-performance¿ high-end computing and networking systems under paragraph (1)(C); and 

ø(F)¿ (G) consult with academic, State, industry, and other 

appropriate groups conducting research on and using øhighperformance¿ high-end computing. 

(3) The annual report submitted under paragraph (2)(D) shall— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(C) describe the levels of Federal funding for the fiscal year 

during which such report øis submitted,¿ is submitted, the levels for the previous fiscal year, and the levels proposed for the 

fiscal year with respect to which the budget submission applies, for øeach Program Component Area;¿ each Program 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
144 

Component Area and research area supported in accordance 

with section 104; 

(D) describe the levels of Federal funding for each agency 

and department participating in the Program, and for øeach 

Program Component Area,¿ each Program Component Area 

and research area supported in accordance with section 104, for 

the fiscal year during which such report øis submitted,¿ is submitted, the levels for the previous fiscal year, and the levels proposed for the fiscal year with respect to which the budget submission applies; øand¿ 

(E) include a description of how the objectives for each Program Component Area, and the objectives for activities that involve multiple Program Component Areas, relate to the objectives of the Program identified in the strategic plan required 

under subsection (e); 

(F) include— 

(i) a description of the funding required by the National 

Coordination Office to perform the functions specified 

under section 102(b) for the next fiscal year by category of 

activity; 

(ii) a description of the funding required by such Office 

to perform the functions specified under section 102(b) for 

the current fiscal year by category of activity; and 

(iii) the amount of funding provided for such Office for 

the current fiscal year by each agency participating in the 

Program; and 

ø(E)¿ (G) include an analysis of the progress made toward 

achieving the goals and priorities established for the Program 

and the extent to which the Program incorporates the recommendations of the advisory committee established under 

subsection (b). 

(b) ADVISORY COMMITTEE.—(1) The President shall establish an 

advisory committee on øhigh-performance computing¿ networking 

and information technology, in which the co-chairs shall be members of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and with the remainder of the committee consisting of geographically dispersed non-Federal members, including representatives of the research, education, and library communities, network 

and related software providers, and industry representatives in the 

Program Component Areas, who are specially qualified to provide 

the Director with advice and information on øhigh-performance 

computing¿ networking and information technology. The recommendations of the advisory committee shall be considered in reviewing and revising the Program. The advisory committee shall 

provide the Director with an independent assessment of— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET.—(1) Each Federal 

agency and department participating in the Program shall, as part 

of its annual request for appropriations to the Office of Management and Budget, submit a report to the Office of Management and 

Budget which— 

(A) identifies each element of its øhigh-performance computing¿ networking and information technology activities 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
145 

which contributes directly to the Program Component Areas or 

benefits from the Program; and 

* * * * * * * 

(d) PERIODIC REVIEWS.—The agencies identified in subsection 

(a)(3)(B) shall— 

(1) periodically assess the contents and funding levels of the 

Program Component Areas and restructure the Program when 

warranted, taking into consideration any relevant recommendations of the advisory committee established under subsection (b); 

and 

(2) ensure that the Program includes large-scale, long-term, 

interdisciplinary research and development activities, including 

activities described in section 104. 

(e) STRATEGIC PLAN.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The agencies identified in subsection 

(a)(3)(B), working through the National Science and Technology 

Council and with the assistance of the National Coordination 

Office established under section 102, shall develop, within 12 

months after the date of enactment of the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act of 2010, 

and update every 3 years thereafter, a 5-year strategic plan to 

guide the activities described under subsection (a)(1). 

(2) CONTENTS.—The strategic plan shall specify near-term 

and long-term objectives for the Program, the anticipated time 

frame for achieving the near-term objectives, the metrics to be 

used for assessing progress toward the objectives, and how the 

Program will— 

(A) foster the transfer of research and development results into new technologies and applications for the benefit 

of society, including through cooperation and collaborations 

with networking and information technology research, development, and technology transition initiatives supported 

by the States; 

(B) encourage and support mechanisms for interdisciplinary research and development in networking and information technology, including through collaborations across 

agencies, across Program Component Areas, with industry, 

with Federal laboratories (as defined in section 4 of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 

U.S.C. 3703)), and with international organizations; 

(C) address long-term challenges of national importance 

for which solutions require large-scale, long-term, interdisciplinary research and development; 

(D) place emphasis on innovative and high-risk projects 

having the potential for substantial societal returns on the 

research investment; 

(E) strengthen all levels of networking and information 

technology education and training programs to ensure an 

adequate, well-trained workforce; and 

(F) attract more women and underrepresented minorities 

to pursue postsecondary degrees in networking and information technology. 

(3) NATIONAL RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE.—The strategic plan 

developed in accordance with paragraph (1) shall be accompanied 

by milestones and roadmaps for establishing and maintaining the 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
146 

national research infrastructure required to support the Program, 

including the roadmap required by subsection (a)(2)(E). 

(4) RECOMMENDATIONS.—The entities involved in developing the 

strategic plan under paragraph (1) shall take into consideration the 

recommendations— 

(A) of the advisory committee established under subsection 

(b); and 

(B) of the stakeholders whose input was solicited by the National Coordination Office, as required under section 102(b)(3). 

(5) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—The Director of the National Coordination Office shall transmit the strategic plan required under paragraph (1) to the advisory committee, the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation of the Senate, and the Committee on 

Science and Technology of the House of Representatives. 

øSEC. 102. NATIONAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATION NETWORK. 

ø(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—As part of the Program, the National 

Science Foundation, the Department of Defense, the Department of 

Energy, the Department of Commerce, the National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration, and other agencies participating in the 

Program shall support the establishment of the National Research 

and Education Network, portions of which shall, to the extent technically feasible, be capable of transmitting data at one gigabit per 

second or greater by 1996. The Network shall provide for the linkage of research institutions and educational institutions, government, and industry in every State. 

ø(b) ACCESS.—Federal agencies and departments shall work with 

private network service providers, State and local agencies, libraries, educational institutions and organizations, and others, as appropriate, in order to ensure that the researchers, educators, and 

students have access, as appropriate, to the Network. The Network 

is to provide users with appropriate access to high-performance 

computing systems, electronic information resources, other research facilities, and libraries. The Network shall provide access, to 

the extent practicable, to electronic information resources maintained by libraries, research facilities, publishers, and affiliated organizations. 

ø(c) NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS.—The Network shall— 

ø(1) be developed and deployed with the computer, telecommunications, and information industries; 

ø(2) be designed, developed, and operated in collaboration 

with potential users in government, industry, and research institutions and educational institutions; 

ø(3) be designed, developed, and operated in a manner which 

fosters and maintains competition and private sector investment in high-speed data networking within the telecommunications industry; 

ø(4) be designed, developed, and operated in a manner which 

promotes research and development leading to development of 

commercial data communications and telecommunications 

standards, whose development will encourage the establishment of privately operated high-speed commercial networks; 

ø(5) be designed and operated so as to ensure the continued 

application of laws that provide network and information resources security measures, including those that protect copyVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00152 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
147 

right and other intellectual property rights, and those that control access to data bases and protect national security; 

ø(6) have accounting mechanisms which allow users or 

groups of users to be charged for their usage of copyrighted 

materials available over the Network and, where appropriate 

and technically feasible, for their usage of the Network; 

ø(7) ensure the interoperability of Federal and non-Federal 

computer networks, to the extent appropriate, in a way that allows autonomy for each component network; 

ø(8) be developed by purchasing standard commercial transmission and network services from vendors whenever feasible, 

and by contracting for customized services when not feasible, 

in order to minimize Federal investment in network hardware; 

ø(9) support research and development of networking software and hardware; and 

ø(10) serve as a test bed for further research and development of high-capacity and high-speed computing networks and 

demonstrate how advanced computers, high-capacity and highspeed computing networks, and data bases can improve the national information infrastructure. 

ø(d) DEFENSE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY RESPONSIBILITY.—As part of the Program, the Department of Defense, 

through the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, shall 

support research and development of advanced fiber optics technology, switches, and protocols needed to develop the Network. 

ø(e) INFORMATION SERVICES.—The Director shall assist the President in coordinating the activities of appropriate agencies and departments to promote the development of information services that 

could be provided over the Network. These services may include 

the provision of directories of the users and services on computer 

networks, data bases of unclassified Federal scientific data, training of users of data bases and computer networks, access to commercial information services for users of the Network, and technology to support computer-based collaboration that allows researchers and educators around the Nation to share information 

and instrumentation. 

ø(f) USE OF GRANT FUNDS.—All Federal agencies and departments are authorized to allow recipients of Federal research grants 

to use grant moneys to pay for computer networking expenses. 

ø(g) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Within one year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director shall report to the Congress on— 

ø(1) effective mechanisms for providing operating funds for 

the maintenance and use of the Network, including user fees, 

industry support, and continued Federal investment; 

ø(2) the future operation and evolution of the Network; 

ø(3) how commercial information service providers could be 

charged for access to the Network, and how Network users 

could be charged for such commercial information services; 

ø(4) the technological feasibility of allowing commercial information service providers to use the Network and other federally funded research networks; 

ø(5) how to protect the copyrights of material distributed 

over the Network; and 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
148 

ø(6) appropriate policies to ensure the security of resources 

available on the Network and to protect the privacy of users 

of networks.¿ 

SEC. 102. NATIONAL COORDINATION OFFICE. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Director shall establish a National Coordination Office with a Director and full-time staff. 

(b) FUNCTIONS.—The National Coordination Office shall— 

(1) provide technical and administrative support to— 

(A) the agencies participating in planning and implementing the Program, including such support as needed in 

the development of the strategic plan under section 101(e); 

and 

(B) the advisory committee established under section 

101(b); 

(2) serve as the primary point of contact on Federal networking and information technology activities for government 

organizations, academia, industry, professional societies, State 

computing and networking technology programs, interested citizen groups, and others to exchange technical and programmatic information; 

(3) solicit input and recommendations from a wide range of 

stakeholders during the development of each strategic plan required under section 101(e) through the convening of at least 1 

workshop with invitees from academia, industry, Federal laboratories, and other relevant organizations and institutions; 

(4) conduct public outreach, including the dissemination of 

findings and recommendations of the advisory committee, as 

appropriate; and 

(5) promote access to and early application of the technologies, innovations, and expertise derived from Program activities to agency missions and systems across the Federal Government and to United States industry. 

(c) SOURCE OF FUNDING.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The operation of the National Coordination 

Office shall be supported by funds from each agency participating in the Program. 

(2) SPECIFICATIONS.—The portion of the total budget of such 

Office that is provided by each agency for each fiscal year shall 

be in the same proportion as each such agency’s share of the 

total budget for the Program for the previous fiscal year, as 

specified in the report required under section 101(a)(3). 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 104. LARGE-SCALE RESEARCH IN AREAS OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Program shall encourage agencies identified in section 101(a)(3)(B) to support large-scale, long-term, interdisciplinary research and development activities in networking and 

information technology directed toward application areas that have 

the potential for significant contributions to national economic competitiveness and for other significant societal benefits. Such activities, ranging from basic research to the demonstration of technical 

solutions, shall be designed to advance the development of research 

discoveries. The advisory committee established under section 101(b) 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
149 

shall make recommendations to the Program for candidate research 

and development areas for support under this section. 

(b) CHARACTERISTICS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Research and development activities under 

this section shall— 

(A) include projects selected on the basis of applications 

for support through a competitive, merit-based process; 

(B) involve collaborations among researchers in institutions of higher education and industry, and may involve 

nonprofit research institutions and Federal laboratories, as 

appropriate; 

(C) when possible, leverage Federal investments through 

collaboration with related State initiatives; and 

(D) include a plan for fostering the transfer of research 

discoveries and the results of technology demonstration activities, including from institutions of higher education and 

Federal laboratories, to industry for commercial development. 

(2) COST-SHARING.—In selecting applications for support, the 

agencies shall give special consideration to projects that include 

cost sharing from non-Federal sources. 

(3) AGENCY COLLABORATION.—If 2 or more agencies identified 

in section 101(a)(3)(B), or other appropriate agencies, are working on large-scale research and development activities in the 

same area of national importance, then such agencies shall 

strive to collaborate through joint solicitation and selection of 

applications for support and subsequent funding of projects. 

(4) INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH CENTERS.—Research and 

development activities under this section may be supported 

through interdisciplinary research centers that are organized to 

investigate basic research questions and carry out technology 

demonstration activities in areas described in subsection (a). 

Research may be carried out through existing interdisciplinary 

centers, including those authorized under section 7024(b)(2) of 

the America COMPETES Act (Public Law 110–69; 42 U.S.C. 

1862o–10). 

SEC. 105. UNIVERSITY/INDUSTRY TASK FORCE. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—Not later than 180 days after the date of 

enactment of the Networking and Information Technology Research 

and Development Act of 2010, the Director of the National Coordination Office established under section 102 shall convene a task 

force to explore mechanisms for carrying out collaborative research 

and development activities for cyber-physical systems, including the 

related technologies required to enable these systems, through a consortium or other appropriate entity with participants from institutions of higher education, Federal laboratories, and industry. 

(b) FUNCTIONS.—The task force shall— 

(1) develop options for a collaborative model and an organizational structure for such entity under which the joint research 

and development activities could be planned, managed, and 

conducted effectively, including mechanisms for the allocation 

of resources among the participants in such entity for support 

of such activities; 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
150 

(2) propose a process for developing a research and development agenda for such entity, including objectives and milestones; 

(3) define the roles and responsibilities for the participants 

from institutions of higher education, Federal laboratories, and 

industry in such entity; 

(4) propose guidelines for assigning intellectual property 

rights and for the transfer of research results to the private sector; and 

(5) make recommendations for how such entity could be funded from Federal, State, and non-governmental sources. 

(c) COMPOSITION.—In establishing the task force under subsection 

(a), the Director of the National Coordination Office shall appoint 

an equal number of individuals from institutions of higher education and from industry with knowledge and expertise in cyberphysical systems, of which 2 may be selected from Federal laboratories. 

(d) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 

the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act of 2010, the Director of the National Coordination Office 

shall transmit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Science and Technology of the House of Representatives a report describing the findings and recommendations of the task force. 

TITLE II—AGENCY ACTIVITIES 

SEC. 201. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION ACTIVITIES. 

(a) GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES.—As part of the Program described in title I— 

(1) the National Science Foundation shall provide computing 

and networking infrastructure support for all science and engineering disciplines, and support basic research and human resource development in all aspects of øhigh-performance computing and advanced high-speed computer networking;¿ networking and information research and development; 

(2) the National Science Foundation shall use its existing programs, in collaboration with other agencies, as appropriate, to 

improve the teaching and learning of networking and information technology at all levels of education and to increase participation in networking and information technology fields, including by women and underrepresented minorities; 

ø(2)¿ (3) to the extent that colleges, universities, and libraries cannot connect to the Network with the assistance of the 

private sector, the National Science Foundation shall have primary responsibility for assisting colleges, universities, and libraries to connect to the Network; 

ø(3)¿ (4) the National Science Foundation shall serve as the 

primary source of information on access to and use of the Network; and 

ø(4)¿ (5) the National Science Foundation shall upgrade the 

National Science Foundation funded network, assist regional 

networks to upgrade their capabilities, and provide other FedVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00156 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
151 

eral departments and agencies the opportunity to connect to 

the National Science Foundation funded network. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 202. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION ACTIVITIES. 

(a) GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES.—As part of the Program described in title I, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall conduct basic and applied research in øhigh-performance 

computing¿ networking and information technology, particularly in 

the field of computational science, with emphasis on aerospace 

sciences, earth and space sciences, and remote exploration and experimentation. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 203. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ACTIVITIES. 

(a) GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES.—As part of the Program described in title I, the Secretary of Energy shall— 

(1) conduct and support basic and applied research in øhighperformance computing and networking¿ networking and information technology to support fundamental research in science 

and engineering disciplines related to energy applications; and 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 204. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ACTIVITIES. 

(a) GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES.—As part of the Program described in title I— 

(1) the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

shall— 

(A) conduct basic and applied measurement research 

needed to support various øhigh-performance computing 

systems and networks¿ networking and information technology systems and capabilities; 

* * * * * * * 

(C) be responsible for developing benchmark tests and 

standards for øhigh-performance computing¿ networking 

and information technology systems and software; and 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 205. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ACTIVITIES. 

(a) GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES.—As part of the Program described in title I, the Environmental Protection Agency shall conduct basic and applied research directed toward the advancement 

and dissemination of øcomputational¿ networking and information 

technology techniques and software tools which form the core of 

ecosystem, atmospheric chemistry, and atmospheric dynamics models. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 206. ROLE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. 

(a) GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES.—As part of the Program described in title I, the Secretary of Education is authorized to conduct basic and applied research in øcomputational research¿ networking and information technology research with an emphasis on 

the coordination of activities with libraries, school facilities, and 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
152 

education research groups with respect to the advancement and 

dissemination of computational science and the development, evaluation and application of software capabilities. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 208. FOSTERING UNITED STATES COMPETITIVENESS IN øHIGHPERFORMANCE COMPUTING¿ NETWORKING AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND RELATED ACTIVITIES. 

(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds the following: 

(1) øHigh-performance computing and associated¿ Networking and information technologies are critical to the United 

States economy. 

(2) While the United States has led the development of 

øhigh-performance computing¿ networking and information 

technologies, United States industry is facing increasing global 

competition. 

* * * * * * * 

(4) It is appropriate for Federal agencies and departments to 

use the funds authorized for the Program in a manner which 

most effectively fosters the maintenance and development of 

United States leadership in øhigh-performance computers and 

associated¿ networking and information technologies in and for 

the benefit of the United States. 

(5) It is appropriate for Federal agencies and departments to 

use the funds authorized for the Program in a manner, consistent with the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2501 

et seq.), which most effectively fosters reciprocal competitive 

procurement treatment by foreign governments for United 

States øhigh-performance computing and associated¿ networking and information technology products and suppliers. 

* * * * * * * 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION ACT OF 1950 

* * * * * * * 

NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD

SEC. 4. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(g) The Board may, with the concurrence of a majority of its 

members, permit the appointment of a staff consisting of ønot more 

than 5¿ professional staff members, technical and professional personnel on leave of absence from academic, industrial, or research 

institutions for a limited term, and such operations and support 

staff members as may be necessary. Such staff shall be appointed 

by the Chairman and assigned at the direction of the Board. The 

professional members and limited term technical and professional 

personnel of such staff may be appointed without regard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in 

the competitive service, and the provisions of chapter 51 of such 

title relating to classification, and shall be compensated at a rate 

not exceeding the maximum rate payable under section 5376 of 

such title, as may be necessary to provide for the performance of 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
153 

such duties as may be prescribed by the Board in connection with 

the exercise of its powers and functions under this Act. Section 

14(a)(3) shall apply to each limited term appointment of technical 

and professional personnel under this subsection. Each appointment under this subsection shall be subject to the same security requirements as those required for personnel of the Foundation appointed under section 14(a). 

* * * * * * * 

(j)(1) The Board shall render to the President and the Congress 

no later than øJanuary 15¿ May 31 of each even numbered year, 

a report on indicators of the state of science and engineering in the 

United States. 

(2) The Board shall render to the President and the Congress reports on specific, individual policy matters within the authority of 

the Foundation (or otherwise as requested by the appropriate Congressional committees of jurisdiction or the President) related to 

science and engineering and education in science and engineering, 

as the Board, the President, or the Congress determines the need 

for such reports. 

* * * * * * * 

SCHOLARSHIPS AND GRADUATE FELLOWSHIPS

SEC. 10. (a) The Foundation is authorized to award scholarships 

and graduate fellowships for study and research in the sciences or 

in engineering at appropriate nonprofit American or nonprofit foreign institutions selected by the recipient of such aid, for stated periods of time. Persons shall be selected for such scholarships and 

fellowships from among citizens, nationals or lawfully admitted 

permanent resident aliens of the United States, and such selections 

shall be made solely on the basis of ability; but in any case in 

which two or more applicants for scholarships or fellowships, as the 

case may be, are deemed by the Foundation to be possessed of substantially equal ability, and there are not sufficient scholarships or 

fellowships, as the case may be, available to grant one to each of 

such applicants, the available scholarship or scholarships, fellowship or fellowships shall be awarded to the applicants in such manner as will tend to result in a wide distribution of scholarships and 

fellowships throughout the United States. Nothing contained in 

this Act shall prohibit the Foundation from refusing or revoking a 

scholarship or fellowship award, in whole or in part, in the case of 

any applicant or recipient, if the Board is of the opinion that such 

award is not in the best interests of the United States. 

(b) The Director shall establish for each year the amount to be 

awarded for scholarships and fellowships under this section for that 

year. Each such scholarship and fellowship shall include a cost of 

education allowance of $12,000, subject to any restrictions on the 

use of cost of education allowance as determined by the Director. 

* * * * * * * 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION AUTHORIZATION ACT 

OF 2002 

* * * * * * * 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
154 

SEC. 10A. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION TEACHING FELLOWSHIPS 

AND MASTER TEACHING FELLOWSHIPS. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(h) MATCHING REQUIREMENT.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—An eligible entity receiving a grant under 

this section shall provide, from non-Federal sources, an 

amount equal to ø50¿ 30 percent of the amount of the grant 

(øwhich may be provided in cash or in-kind¿ which shall be 

provided in cash) to carry out the activities supported by the 

grant. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 15. ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS. 

(a) BOARD MEETINGS.— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(3) COMPLIANCE AUDIT.—The Inspector General of the 

Foundation shall conduct an audit every three years of the 

compliance by the Board with the requirements described in 

paragraph (2). The audit shall examine the proposed and actual content of closed meetings and determine whether the closure of the meetings was consistent with section 552b of title 

5, United States Code.¿ 

ø(4)¿ (3) REPORT.—Not later than øFebruary 15¿ April 15 of 

every third year, the Inspector General of the Foundation shall 

transmit to the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate, and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate øthe audit required 

under paragraph (3) along with¿ any recommendations for corrective actions that need to be taken to achieve fuller compliance with the requirements described in paragraph (2), and 

recommendations on how to ensure public access to the Board’s 

deliberations. 

ø(5)¿ (4) MATERIALS RELATING TO CLOSED PORTIONS OF MEETINGS.—øTo facilitate the audit required under paragraph (3) of 

this subsection, the¿ The Office of the National Science Board 

shall maintain the General Counsel’s certificate, the presiding 

officer’s statement, and a transcript or recording of any closed 

meeting, for at least 3 years after such meeting. 

* * * * * * * 

øSEC. 17. UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION REFORM. 

ø(a) IN GENERAL.—The Director shall award grants, on a competitive, merit-reviewed basis, to institutions of higher education to 

expand previously implemented reforms of undergraduate science, 

mathematics, engineering, or technology education that have been 

demonstrated to have been successful in increasing the number 

and quality of students studying toward and completing associate’s 

or baccalaureate degrees in science, mathematics, engineering, or 

technology. 

ø(b) USES OF FUNDS.—Activities supported by grants under this 

section may include— 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
155 

ø(1) expansion of successful reform efforts beyond a single 

course or group of courses to achieve reform within an entire 

academic unit; 

ø(2) expansion of successful reform efforts beyond a single 

academic unit to other science, mathematics, engineering, or 

technology academic units within an institution; 

ø(3) creation of multidisciplinary courses or programs that 

formalize collaborations for the purpose of improved student 

instruction and research in science, mathematics, engineering, 

and technology; 

ø(4) expansion of undergraduate research opportunities beyond a particular laboratory, course, or academic unit to engage multiple academic units in providing multidisciplinary research opportunities for undergraduate students; 

ø(5) expansion of innovative tutoring or mentoring programs 

proven to enhance student recruitment or persistence to degree 

completion in science, mathematics, engineering, or technology; 

ø(6) improvement of undergraduate science, mathematics, 

engineering, and technology education for nonmajors, including 

education majors; and 

ø(7) implementation of technology-driven reform efforts, including the installation of technology to facilitate such reform, 

that directly impact undergraduate science, mathematics, engineering, or technology instruction or research experiences. 

ø(c) SELECTION PROCESS.— 

ø(1) APPLICATIONS.—An institution of higher education seeking a grant under this section shall submit an application to 

the Director at such time, in such manner, and containing such 

information as the Director may require. The application shall 

include, at a minimum— 

ø(A) a description of the proposed reform effort; 

ø(B) a description of the previously implemented reform 

effort that will serve as the basis for the proposed reform 

effort and evidence of success of that previous effort, including data on student recruitment, persistence to degree 

completion, and academic achievement; 

ø(C) evidence of active participation in the proposed 

project by individuals who were central to the success of 

the previously implemented reform effort; and 

ø(D) evidence of institutional support for, and commitment to, the proposed reform effort, including a description 

of existing or planned institutional policies and practices 

regarding faculty hiring, promotion, tenure, and teaching 

assignment that reward faculty contributions to undergraduate education equal to, or greater than, scholarly scientific research. 

ø(2) REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS.—In evaluating applications 

submitted under paragraph (1), the Director shall consider at 

a minimum— 

ø(A) the evidence of past success in implementing undergraduate education reform and the likelihood of success in 

undertaking the proposed expanded effort; 

ø(B) the extent to which the faculty, staff, and administrators of the institution are committed to making the proVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00161 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
156 

posed institutional reform a priority of the participating 

academic unit; 

ø(C) the degree to which the proposed reform will contribute to change in institutional culture and policy such 

that a greater value is placed on faculty engagement in 

undergraduate education, as evidenced through promotion 

and tenure policies; and 

ø(D) the likelihood that the institution will sustain or expand the reform beyond the period of the grant. 

ø(3) GRANT DISTRIBUTION.—The Director shall ensure, to the 

extent practicable, that grants awarded under this section are 

made to a variety of types of institutions of higher education.¿ 

SEC. 17. TRANSFORMING UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION IN STEM. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Director shall award grants, on a competitive, merit-reviewed basis, to institutions of higher education (or to 

consortia thereof) to reform undergraduate STEM education for the 

purpose of increasing the number and quality of students studying 

toward and completing baccalaureate degrees in STEM and improving the STEM learning outcomes for all undergraduate students, including through— 

(1) development, implementation, and assessment of innovative, research-based approaches to transforming the teaching 

and learning of disciplinary or interdisciplinary STEM at the 

undergraduate level; and 

(2) expansion of successful STEM reform efforts beyond a single course or group of courses to achieve reform within an entire 

academic unit, or expansion of successful reform efforts beyond 

a single academic unit to other STEM academic units within 

an institution or to comparable academic units at other institutions. 

(b) USES OF FUNDS.—Activities supported by grants under this 

section may include— 

(1) creation of multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary courses 

or programs that formalize collaborations for the purpose of improved student instruction and research in STEM; 

(2) expansion of undergraduate STEM research opportunities 

to include interdisciplinary research opportunities and research 

opportunities in industry, at Federal labs, and at international 

research institutions or research sites; 

(3) implementation or expansion of bridge programs, including programs that address student transition from 2-year to 4- 

year institutions, and cohort, tutoring, or mentoring programs 

proven to enhance student recruitment or persistence to degree 

completion in STEM, including recruitment or persistence to 

degree completion of individuals identified in section 33 or 34 

of the Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act (42 

U.S.C. 1885a or 1885b); 

(4) improvement of undergraduate STEM education for nonmajors, including education majors; 

(5) implementation of evidence-based, technology-driven reform efforts that directly impact undergraduate STEM instruction or research experiences; 

(6) development and implementation of faculty and graduate 

teaching assistant development programs focused on improved 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
157 

instruction, mentoring, assessment of student learning, and 

support of undergraduate STEM students; 

(7) support for graduate students and postdoctoral fellows to 

participate in instructional or assessment activities at primarily 

undergraduate institutions; 

(8) research on teaching and learning of STEM at the undergraduate level related to the proposed reform effort, including 

assessment and evaluation of the proposed reform activities, research on scalability and sustainability of approaches to reform, and development and implementation of longitudinal 

studies of students included in the proposed reform effort; and 

(9) support for initiatives that advance the integration of 

global challenges such as sustainability into disciplinary and 

interdisciplinary STEM education. 

(c) PARTNERSHIP.—An institution of higher education may partner 

with one or more other nonprofit education or research organizations, including scientific and engineering societies, for the purposes 

of carrying out the activities authorized under this section. 

(d) SELECTION PROCESS.— 

(1) APPLICATIONS.—An institution of higher education seeking 

a grant under this section shall submit an application to the 

Director at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Director may require. The application shall include, at a minimum— 

(A) a description of the proposed reform effort; 

(B) a description of the research findings that will serve 

as the basis for the proposed reform effort or, in the case 

of applications that propose an expansion of a previously 

implemented reform effort, a description of the previously 

implemented reform effort, including indicators of success 

such as data on student recruitment, persistence to degree 

completion, and academic achievement; 

(C) evidence of institutional support for, and commitment 

to, the proposed reform effort, including long-term commitment to implement successful strategies from the current reform effort beyond the academic unit or units included in 

the grant proposal or to disseminate successful strategies to 

other institutions; 

(D) a description of existing or planned institutional policies and practices regarding faculty hiring, promotion, tenure, and teaching assignment that reward faculty contributions to undergraduate STEM education; and 

(E) a description of the plans for assessment and evaluation of the proposed reform activities, including evidence of 

participation by individuals with experience in assessment 

and evaluation of teaching and learning programs. 

(2) REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS.—In selecting grant recipients 

under this section, the Director shall consider at a minimum— 

(A) the likelihood of success in undertaking the proposed 

effort at the institution submitting the application, including the extent to which the faculty, staff, and administrators of the institution are committed to making the proposed institutional reform a priority of the participating 

academic unit or units; 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
158 

(B) the degree to which the proposed reform will contribute to change in institutional culture and policy such 

that a greater value is placed on faculty engagement in undergraduate education; 

(C) the likelihood that the institution will sustain or expand the reform beyond the period of the grant; and 

(D) the degree to which scholarly assessment and evaluation plans are included in the design of the reform effort, 

including the degree to which such assessment and evaluation contribute to the systematic accumulation of knowledge 

on STEM education. 

(3) PRIORITY.—For proposals that include an expansion of existing reform efforts beyond a single academic unit, the Director 

shall give priority to proposals for which a senior institutional 

administrator, including a dean or other administrator of equal 

or higher rank, serves as the principal investigator or a coprincipal investigator. 

(4) GRANT DISTRIBUTION.—The Director shall ensure, to the 

extent practicable, that grants awarded under this section are 

made to a variety of types of institutions of higher education. 

* * * * * * * 

AMERICA COMPETES ACT 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘America COMPETES Act’’ or the 

‘‘America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act’’. 

SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

The table of contents of this Act is as follows: 

Sec. 1. Short title. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE V—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

* * * * * * * 

øSec. 5004. Nuclear science talent expansion program for institutions of higher 

education. 

øSec. 5005. Hydrocarbon systems science talent expansion program for institutions 

of higher education.¿ 

Sec. 5004. Energy applied science talent expansion program for institutions of higher education. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE V—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 5002. DEFINITIONS. 

In this title: 

(1) * * * 

(2) ENERGY SYSTEMS SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING.—The term 

‘‘energy systems science and engineering’’ means— 

(A) nuclear science and engineering, including— 

(i) nuclear engineering; 

(ii) nuclear chemistry; 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
159 

(iii) radiochemistry; and 

(iv) health physics; 

(B) hydrocarbon system science and engineering, including— 

(i) petroleum or reservoir engineering; 

(ii) environmental geoscience; 

(iii) petrophysics; 

(iv) geophysics; 

(v) geochemistry; 

(vi) petroleum geology; 

(vii) ocean engineering; 

(viii) environmental engineering; and 

(ix) carbon capture and sequestration science and engineering; 

(C) energy efficiency and renewable energy technology 

systems science and engineering, including with respect 

to— 

(i) solar technology systems; 

(ii) wind technology systems; 

(iii) buildings technology systems; 

(iv) transportation technology systems; 

(v) hydropower systems; and 

(vi) geothermal systems; and 

(D) energy storage and distribution systems science and 

engineering, including with respect to— 

(i) energy storage; and 

(ii) energy delivery. 

ø(2)¿ (3) INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION.—The term ‘‘institution of higher education’’ has the meaning given the term 

in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 

U.S.C. 1001(a)). 

ø(3)¿ (4) NATIONAL LABORATORY.—The term ‘‘National Laboratory’’ has the meaning given the term in section 2 of the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 15801). 

ø(4)¿ (5) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of Energy. 

* * * * * * * 

øSEC. 5004. NUCLEAR SCIENCE TALENT EXPANSION PROGRAM FOR INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION. 

ø(a) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this section are— 

ø(1) to address the decline in the number of and resources 

available to nuclear science programs at institutions of higher 

education; and 

ø(2) to increase the number of graduates with degrees in nuclear science, an area of strategic importance to the economic 

competitiveness and energy security of the United States. 

ø(b) DEFINITION OF NUCLEAR SCIENCE.—In this section, the term 

‘‘nuclear science’’ includes— 

ø(1) nuclear science; 

ø(2) nuclear engineering; 

ø(3) nuclear chemistry; 

ø(4) radio chemistry; and 

ø(5) health physics. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
160 

ø(c) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary shall establish, in accordance with this section, a program to expand and enhance institution of higher education nuclear science educational capabilities. 

ø(d) NUCLEAR SCIENCE PROGRAM EXPANSION GRANTS FOR INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION.— 

ø(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall award up to 3 competitive grants for each fiscal year to institutions of higher education that establish new academic degree programs in nuclear 

science. 

ø(2) PRIORITY.—In evaluating grants under this subsection, 

the Secretary shall give priority to proposals that involve partnerships with a National Laboratory or other eligible nuclearrelated entity, as determined by the Secretary. 

ø(3) CRITERIA.—Criteria for a grant awarded under this subsection shall be based on— 

ø(A) the potential to attract new students to the program; 

ø(B) academic rigor; and 

ø(C) the ability to offer hands-on learning opportunities. 

ø(4) DURATION AND AMOUNT.— 

ø(A) DURATION.—A grant under this subsection may be 

up to 5 years in duration. 

ø(B) AMOUNT.—An institution of higher education that 

receives a grant under this subsection shall be eligible for 

up to $1,000,000 for each year of the grant period. 

ø(5) USE OF FUNDS.—An institution of higher education that 

receives a grant under this subsection may use the grant to— 

ø(A) recruit and retain new faculty; 

ø(B) develop core and specialized course content; 

ø(C) encourage collaboration between faculty and researchers in the nuclear science field; and 

ø(D) support outreach efforts to recruit students. 

ø(e) NUCLEAR SCIENCE COMPETITIVENESS GRANTS FOR INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION.— 

ø(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall award up to 5 competitive grants for each fiscal year to institutions of higher education with existing academic degree programs that produce 

graduates in nuclear science. 

ø(2) CRITERIA.—Criteria for a grant awarded under this subsection shall be based on the potential for increasing the number and academic quality of graduates in the nuclear sciences 

who enter into careers in nuclear-related fields. 

ø(3) DURATION AND AMOUNT.— 

ø(A) DURATION.—A grant under this subsection may be 

up to 5 years in duration. 

ø(B) AMOUNT.—An institution of higher education that 

receives a grant under this subsection shall be eligible for 

up to $500,000 for each year of the grant period. 

ø(4) USE OF FUNDS.—An institution of higher education that 

receives a grant under this subsection may use the grant to— 

ø(A) increase the number of graduates in nuclear science 

that enter into careers in the nuclear science field; 

ø(B) enhance the teaching of advanced nuclear technologies; 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
161 

ø(C) aggressively pursue collaboration opportunities with 

industry and National Laboratories; 

ø(D) bolster or sustain nuclear infrastructure and research facilities of the institution of higher education, such 

as research and training reactors or laboratories; and 

ø(E) provide tuition assistance and stipends to undergraduate and graduate students. 

ø(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— ø(1) NUCLEAR SCIENCE PROGRAM EXPANSION GRANTS FOR IN- STITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION.—There are authorized to be 

appropriated to carry out subsection (d)— 

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

ø(B) $6,500,000 for fiscal year 2009; and 

ø(C) $9,500,000 for fiscal year 2010. 

ø(2) NUCLEAR SCIENCE COMPETITIVENESS GRANTS FOR INSTI- TUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION.—There are authorized to be 

appropriated to carry out subsection (e)— 

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

ø(B) $5,500,000 for fiscal year 2009; and 

ø(C) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2010. 

øSEC. 5005. HYDROCARBON SYSTEMS SCIENCE TALENT EXPANSION 

PROGRAM FOR INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION. 

ø(a) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this section are— 

ø(1) to address the decline in the number of and resources 

available to hydrocarbon systems science programs at institutions of higher education; and 

ø(2) to increase the number of graduates with degrees in hydrocarbon systems science, an area of strategic importance to 

the economic competitiveness and energy security of the 

United States. 

ø(b) DEFINITION OF HYDROCARBON SYSTEMS SCIENCE.—In this 

section: 

ø(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘hydrocarbon systems science’’ 

means a science involving natural gas or other petroleum exploration, development, or production. 

ø(2) INCLUSIONS.—The term ‘‘hydrocarbon systems science’’ 

includes— 

ø(A) petroleum or reservoir engineering; 

ø(B) environmental geoscience; 

ø(C) petrophysics; 

ø(D) geophysics; 

ø(E) geochemistry; 

ø(F) petroleum geology; 

ø(G) ocean engineering; 

ø(H) environmental engineering; and 

ø(I) computer science, as computer science relates to a 

science described in this subsection. 

ø(c) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary shall establish, in accordance with this section, a program to expand and enhance institution of higher education hydrocarbon systems science educational 

capabilities. 

ø(d) HYDROCARBON SYSTEMS SCIENCE PROGRAM EXPANSION

GRANTS FOR INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION.— 

ø(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall award up to 3 competitive grants for each fiscal year to institutions of higher eduVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00167 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
162 

cation that establish new academic degree programs in hydrocarbon systems science. 

ø(2) ELIGIBILITY.—In evaluating grants under this subsection, the Secretary shall give priority to proposals that involve partnerships with the National Laboratories, including 

the National Energy Technology Laboratory, or other hydrocarbon systems scientific entities, as determined by the Secretary. 

ø(3) CRITERIA.—Criteria for a grant awarded under this subsection shall be based on— 

ø(A) the potential to attract new students to the program; 

ø(B) academic rigor; and 

ø(C) the ability to offer hands-on learning opportunities. 

ø(4) DURATION AND AMOUNT.— 

ø(A) DURATION.—A grant under this subsection may be 

up to 5 years in duration. 

ø(B) AMOUNT.—An institution of higher education that 

receives a grant under this subsection shall be eligible for 

up to $1,000,000 for each year of the grant period. 

ø(5) USE OF FUNDS.—An institution of higher education that 

receives a grant under this subsection may use the grant to— 

ø(A) recruit and retain new faculty; 

ø(B) develop core and specialized course content; 

ø(C) encourage collaboration between faculty and researchers in the hydrocarbon systems science field; and 

ø(D) support outreach efforts to recruit students. 

ø(e) HYDROCARBON SYSTEMS SCIENCE COMPETITIVENESS GRANTS

FOR INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION.— 

ø(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall award up to 5 competitive grants for each fiscal year to institutions of higher education with existing academic degree programs that produce 

graduates in hydrocarbon systems science. 

ø(2) CRITERIA.—Criteria for a grant awarded under this subsection shall be based on the potential for increasing the number and academic quality of graduates in hydrocarbon systems 

sciences who enter into careers in natural gas and other petroleum exploration, development, and production related fields. 

ø(3) DURATION AND AMOUNT.— 

ø(A) DURATION.—A grant under this subsection may be 

up to 5 years in duration. 

ø(B) AMOUNT.—An institution of higher education that 

receives a grant under this subsection shall be eligible for 

up to $500,000 for each year of the grant period. 

ø(4) USE OF FUNDS.—An institution of higher education that 

receives a grant under this subsection may use the grant to— 

ø(A) increase the number of graduates in the hydrocarbon systems sciences that enter into careers in the natural gas and other petroleum exploration, development, 

and production science fields; 

ø(B) enhance the teaching of advanced natural gas and 

other petroleum exploration, development, and production 

technologies; 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
163 

ø(C) aggressively pursue collaboration opportunities with 

industry and the National Laboratories, including the National Energy Technology Laboratory; 

ø(D) bolster or sustain natural gas and other petroleum 

exploration, development, and production infrastructure 

and research facilities of the institution of higher education, such as research and training or laboratories; and 

ø(E) provide tuition assistance and stipends to undergraduate and graduate students. 

ø(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— 

ø(1) HYDROCARBON SYSTEMS SCIENCE PROGRAM EXPANSION

GRANTS FOR INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION.—There are 

authorized to be appropriated to carry out subsection (d)— 

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

ø(B) $6,500,000 for fiscal year 2009; and 

ø(C) $9,500,000 for fiscal year 2010. 

ø(2) HYDROCARBON SYSTEMS SCIENCE COMPETITIVENESS

GRANTS FOR INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION.—There are 

authorized to be appropriated to carry out subsection (e)— 

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

ø(B) $5,500,000 for fiscal year 2009; and 

ø(C) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.¿ 

SEC. 5004. ENERGY APPLIED SCIENCE TALENT EXPANSION PROGRAM 

FOR INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION. 

(a) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this section are— 

(1) to address the decline in the number of and resources 

available to energy systems science and engineering programs 

at institutions of higher education, including community colleges; and 

(2) to increase the number of graduates with degrees in energy systems science and engineering, an area of strategic importance to the economic competitiveness and energy security of 

the United States. 

(b) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary shall award grants, on a 

competitive, merit-reviewed basis, to institutions of higher education 

to implement or expand the energy systems science and engineering 

educational and technical training capabilities of the institution, 

and to provide merit-based financial support for master’s and doctoral level students pursuing courses of study and research in energy systems sciences and engineering. 

(c) USE OF FUNDS.—An institution of higher education that receives a grant under this section may use the grant to— 

(1) provide traineeships, including stipends and cost of education allowances, to master’s and doctoral students; 

(2) develop or expand multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary 

courses or programs; 

(3) recruit and retain new faculty; 

(4) develop or improve core and specialized course content; 

(5) encourage interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research collaborations; 

(6) support outreach efforts to recruit students, including individuals identified in section 33 or 34 of the Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act (42 U.S.C. 1885a or 1885b); 

and 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
164 

(7) pursue opportunities for collaboration with industry and 

National Laboratories. 

(d) CRITERIA.—Criteria for awarding a grant under this section 

shall be based on— 

(1) the potential to attract new students to the program; 

(2) academic rigor; and 

(3) the ability to offer hands-on education and training opportunities for graduate students in the emerging areas of energy 

systems science and engineering. 

(e) PRIORITY.—The Secretary shall give priority to proposals that 

involve active partnerships with a National Laboratory or other energy systems science and engineering related entity, as determined 

by the Secretary. 

(f) DURATION AND AMOUNT.— 

(1) DURATION.—A grant under this section may be for up to 

5 years in duration. 

(2) AMOUNT.—An institution of higher education that receives 

a grant under this section shall be eligible for up to $1,000,000 

for each year of the grant period. 

(g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to 

be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section— 

(1) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2011; 

(2) $32,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; 

(3) $36,000,000 for fiscal year 2013; 

(4) $38,000,000 for fiscal year 2014; and 

(5) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2015. 

SEC. 5006. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY EARLY CAREER AWARDS FOR 

SCIENCE. ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS RESEARCHERS. 

(a) GRANT AWARDS.—The øDirector of the Office of Science of the 

Department (referred to in this section as the ‘‘Director’’) shall 

carry¿ Secretary shall carry out a program to award grants to scientists and engineers at an early career stage at institutions of 

higher education and organizations described in subsection (c) to 

conduct research in fields relevant to the mission of the Department. 

(b) AMOUNT AND DURATION.— 

(1) AMOUNT.—The amount of a grant awarded under this 

section shall be— 

(A) not less than $80,000 per year; and 

(B) not more than ø$125,000¿ $175,000 per year. 

* * * * * * * 

(c) ELIGIBILITY.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—To be eligible to receive a grant under this 

section, an individual shallø, as determined by the Director¿— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(2) WAIVER.—Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(A), the øDirector¿ Secretary may determine that an individual who has completed a doctorate more than 10 years before the date of submission of a proposal under subsection (e)(1) is eligible to receive a grant under this section if the individual was unable 

to conduct research for a period of time because of extenuating 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
165 

circumstances, including military service or family responsibilities, as determined by the øDirector¿ Secretary. (d) SELECTION.—Grant recipients shall be selected on a competitive, ømerit-reviewed¿ merit-based, peer reviewed basis. 

(e) SELECTION PROCESS AND CRITERIA.— (1) PROPOSAL.—To be eligible to receive a grant under this 

section, an individual shall submit to the øDirector¿ Secretary 

a proposal at such time, in such manner, and containing such 

information as the øDirector¿ Secretary may require. 

(2) EVALUATION.—In evaluating the proposals submitted 

under paragraph (1), the øDirector¿ Secretary shall take into 

consideration, at a minimum— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(f) DIVERSITY REQUIREMENT.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—In awarding grants under this section, the 

øDirector¿ Secretary shall endeavor to ensure that the grant 

recipients represent a variety of types of institutions of higher 

education and nonprofit, nondegree-granting research organizations. 

(2) REQUIREMENT.—In support of the goal described in paragraph (1), the øDirector¿ Secretary shall broadly disseminate 

information regarding the deadlines applicable to, and manner 

in which to submit, proposals for grants under this section, including by conducting outreach activities for— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(g) REPORT ON RECRUITING AND RETAINING EARLY CAREER

SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING RESEARCHERS AT NATIONAL LABORATORIES.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the øDirector¿ Secretary shall submit to 

the Committee on Science and Technology of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report describing efforts of the øDirector¿ Secretary to recruit and retain young scientists and engineers at early career stages at the National Laboratories. 

* * * * * * * 

(h) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated to the Secretaryø, acting through the Director,¿ to 

carry out this section ø$25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 

through 2010¿ such sums as are necessary. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 5009. PROTECTING AMERICA’S COMPETITIVE EDGE (PACE) GRADUATE FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) SELECTION.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall award fellowships to 

eligible students under this section through a competitive 

merit review process, øinvolving written and oral interviews, 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
166 

that will result in a wide distribution of awards throughout the 

United States,¿ as determined by the Secretary. 

(2) CRITERIA.—The Secretary shall establish selection criteria 

for awarding fellowships under this section that require an eligible student— 

(A) * * * 

(B) to demonstrate to the Secretary— 

(i) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(iv) excellent øverbal and¿ communication skills to 

explain, defend, and demonstrate an understanding of 

technical subjects relating to the fellowship; and 

* * * * * * * 

(d) AWARDS.— 

(1) AMOUNT.—A fellowship awarded under this section 

shall— 

(A) * * * 

(B) cover— 

(i) partial or full graduate tuition at an institution 

of higher education described in subsection (a); and 

* * * * * * * 

ø(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section— 

ø(1) $7,500,000 for fiscal year 2008; 

ø(2) $12,000,000 for fiscal year 2009, including nonexpiring 

fellowships for the preceding fiscal year; and 

ø(3) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2010, including nonexpiring 

fellowships for preceding fiscal years.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 5012. ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY—ENERGY. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) GOALS.— 

(1) * * * 

(2) MEANS.—ARPA-E shall achieve the goals established 

under paragraph (1) through energy technology projects by— 

(A) identifying and promoting revolutionary advances in 

fundamental and applied sciences; 

(B) translating scientific discoveries and cutting-edge inventions into technological innovations; øand¿ 

(C) accelerating transformational technological advances 

in areas that industry by itself is not likely to undertake 

because of technical and financial uncertaintyø.¿; and 

(D) promoting the commercial application of advanced 

energy technologies. 

* * * * * * * 

(e) RESPONSIBILITIES.—The responsibilities of the Director shall 

include— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
167 

(3) administering the Fund through awards to institutions of 

higher education, companies, research foundations, trade and 

industry research collaborations, or consortia of such entities, 

which may include federally-funded research and development 

centers, to achieve the goals described in subsection (c) through 

targeted acceleration of— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(C) research and development of manufacturing processes for novel energy technologies; and¿ 

(C) research and development of advanced manufacturing process and technologies for the domestic manufacturing of novel energy technologies; and 

(D) coordination with nongovernmental entities for demonstration of technologies and research applications to facilitate technology transfer; øand¿ 

(4) terminating programs carried out under this section that 

are not achieving the goals of the programsø.¿; and 

(5) pursuant to subsection (c)(2)(C)— 

(A) ensuring that applications for funding disclose the extent of current and prior efforts, including monetary investments as appropriate, in pursuit of the technology area for 

which funding is being requested; 

(B) adopting measures to ensure that, in making awards, 

program managers adhere to the objectives in subsection 

(c)(2)(C); and 

(C) providing as part of the annual report required by 

subsection (h)(1) a summary of the instances of and reasons 

for ARPA-E funding projects in technology areas already 

being undertaken by industry. 

(f) AWARDS.—In carrying out this section, the Director shall initiate and execute awards in the form of grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, cash prizes, and other transactions. 

ø(f)¿ (g) PERSONNEL.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Director shall establish and maintain 

within ARPA-E a staff with sufficient qualifications and expertise to enable ARPA-E to carry out its responsibilities under this 

section in conjunction with the operations of the rest of the Department. 

ø(1)¿ (2) øPROGRAM MANAGERS¿ PROGRAM DIRECTORS.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Director shall designate employees to serve as øprogram managers¿ program directors for 

øeach of¿ the programs established pursuant to the responsibilities established for ARPA-E under subsection (e). 

(B) RESPONSIBILITIES.—A øprogram manager¿ program 

director of a program shall be responsible for— 

(i) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(iv) selecting on the basis of meritø, with advice 

under subsection (j) as appropriate,¿ each of the 

projects to be supported under the program after considering— 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
168 

(I) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(v) identifying innovative cost-sharing arrangements 

for ARPA-E projects, including through use of the authority under section 988(b)(3) of the Energy Policy Act 

of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16352(b)(3)); identifying innovative 

cost-sharing arrangements for ARPA-E projects, including through use of the authority under section 

988(b)(3) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 

16352(b)(3)); 

ø(v)¿ (vi) monitoring the progress of projects supported under the program; øand¿ 

(vii) identifying mechanisms for commercial application of successful energy technology development 

projects, including through establishment of partnerships between awardees and commercial entities; and 

ø(vi)¿ (viii) recommending program restructure or 

termination of research partnerships or whole projects. 

(C) TERM.—The term of a program manager shall be up 

to 3 years and may be renewed. 

ø(2)¿ (3) HIRING AND MANAGEMENT.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The Director shall have the authority 

to— 

(i) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(B) NUMBER.—The Director shall appoint not less than 

70, and not more than 120, personnel under this section.¿ 

ø(C)¿ (B) PRIVATE RECRUITING FIRMS.—The Secretary, or 

the Director serving as an agent of the Secretary, may contract with private recruiting firms for the hiring of qualified technical staff to carry out this section. 

ø(D)¿ (C) ADDITIONAL STAFF.—The Director may use all 

authorities in existence on the date of enactment of this 

Act that are provided to the Secretary to hire administrative, financial, and clerical staff as necessary to carry out 

this section. 

(4) FELLOWSHIPS.—The Director is authorized to select exceptional early-career and senior scientific, legal, business, and 

technical personnel to serve as fellows to work at ARPA-E for 

terms not to exceed two years. Responsibilities of fellows may 

include— 

(A) supporting program managers in program creation, 

design, implementation, and management; 

(B) exploring technical fields for future ARPA-E program 

areas; 

(C) assisting the Director in the creation of the strategic 

vision for ARPA-E referred to in subsection (h)(2); 

(D) preparing energy technology and economic analyses; 

and 

(E) any other appropriate responsibilities identified by 

the Director. 

ø(g)¿ (h) REPORTS AND ROADMAPS.— 

(1) * * * 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
169 

(2) STRATEGIC VISION ROADMAP.—Not later than October 1, 

ø2008¿ 2010, and October 1, ø2011¿ 2013, the Director shall 

provide to the relevant authorizing and appropriations committees of Congress a roadmap describing the strategic vision that 

ARPA-E will use to guide the choices of ARPA-E for future 

technology investments over the following 3 fiscal years. 

ø(h)¿ (i) COORDINATION AND NONDUPLICATION.— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(i) FEDERAL DEMONSTRATION OF TECHNOLOGIES.—The Secretary 

shall make information available to purchasing and procurement 

programs of Federal agencies regarding the potential to demonstrate technologies resulting from activities funded through 

ARPA-E.¿ 

(j) FEDERAL DEMONSTRATION OF TECHNOLOGIES.—The Director 

shall seek opportunities to partner with purchasing and procurement programs of Federal agencies to demonstrate energy technologies resulting from activities funded through ARPA-E. 

(k) EVENTS.— 

(1) The Director is authorized to convene, organize, and sponsor events that further the objectives of ARPA-E, including 

events that assemble awardees, the most promising applicants 

for ARPA-E funding, and a broad range of ARPA-E stakeholders (which may include members of relevant scientific research and academic communities, government officials, financial institutions, private investors, entrepreneurs, and other private entities), for the purposes of— 

(A) demonstrating projects of ARPA-E awardees; 

(B) demonstrating projects of finalists for ARPA-E 

awards and other energy technology projects; 

(C) facilitating discussion of the commercial application 

of energy technologies developed under ARPA-E and other 

government-sponsored research and development programs; 

or 

(D) such other purposes as the Director considers appropriate. 

(2) Funding for activities described in paragraph (1) shall be 

provided as part of the technology transfer and outreach activities authorized under subsection (o)(4)(B). 

ø(j)¿ (l) ADVICE.— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(k)¿ (m) ARPA-E EVALUATION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—After ARPA-E has been in operation for ø4 

years¿ 6 years, the Secretary shall offer to enter into a contract 

with the National Academy of Sciences under which the National Academy shall conduct an evaluation of how well ARPAE is achieving the goals and mission of ARPA-E. 

(2) INCLUSIONS.—The evaluation shall include— 

(A) * * * 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
170 

(B) a description of lessons learned from operation of 

ARPA-E, and how those lessons may apply to the operation 

of other programs within the Department of Energy. 

* * * * * * * 

ø(l)¿ (n) EXISTING AUTHORITIES.—The authorities granted by this 

section are— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(m)¿ (o) FUNDING.— (1) * * * 

ø(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Subject to paragraphs (4) and (5), there are authorized to be appropriated to 

the Director for deposit in the Fund, without fiscal year limitation— 

ø(A) $300,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and 

ø(B) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 

2009 and 2010.¿ 

(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Subject to paragraph (4), there are authorized to be appropriated to the Director for deposit in the Fund, without fiscal year limitation— 

(A) $300,000,000 for fiscal year 2011; 

(B) $450,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; 

(C) $600,000,000 for fiscal year 2013; 

(D) $800,000,000 for fiscal year 2014; and 

(E) $1,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2015. 

* * * * * * * 

ø(4) LIMITATION.—No amounts may be appropriated for 

ARPA-E for fiscal year 2008 unless the amount appropriated 

for the activities of the Office of Science of the Department for 

fiscal year 2008 exceeds the amount appropriated for the Office 

for fiscal year 2007, as adjusted for inflation in accordance 

with the Consumer Price Index published by the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor.¿ 

ø(5)¿ (4) ALLOCATION.—Of the amounts appropriated for a 

fiscal year under paragraph (2)— 

(A) not more than 50 percent of the amount shall be 

used to carry out subsection (e)(3)(D); 

(B) at least ø2.5 percent¿ 5 percent of the amount shall 

be used for technology transfer and outreach activities, 

consistent with the goal described in subsection (c)(2)(D) 

and within the responsibilities of program directors as 

specified in subsection (g)(2)(B)(vii); and 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE VII—NATIONAL SCIENCE 

FOUNDATION 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 7026. LABORATORY SCIENCE PILOT PROGRAM. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
171 

ø(d) SUNSET.—The provisions of this section shall cease to have 

force or effect on the last day of fiscal year 2010. 

ø(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—From the amounts authorized under subsections (a)(2)(B), (b)(2)(B), and (c)(2)(B) of section 7002, there are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 

section and the amendments made by this section $5,000,000 for 

fiscal year 2008, and such sums as may be necessary for each of 

the 2 succeeding fiscal years.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

øSEC. 7034. PROFESSIONAL SCIENCE MASTER’S DEGREE PROGRAMS. 

ø(a) CLEARINGHOUSE.— 

ø(1) DEVELOPMENT.—The Director shall establish a clearinghouse, in collaboration with 4-year institutions of higher education (including applicable graduate schools and academic departments), and industries and Federal agencies that employ 

science-trained personnel, to share program elements used in 

successful professional science master’s degree programs and 

other advanced degree programs related to science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics. 

ø(2) AVAILABILITY.—The Director shall make the clearinghouse of program elements developed under paragraph (1) 

available to institutions of higher education that are developing professional science master’s degree programs. 

ø(b) PROGRAMS.— 

ø(1) PROGRAMS AUTHORIZED.—The Director shall award 

grants to 4-year institutions of higher education to facilitate 

the institutions’ creation or improvement of professional 

science master’s degree programs that may include linkages 

between institutions of higher education and industries that 

employ science-trained personnel, with an emphasis on practical training and preparation for the workforce in high-need 

fields. 

ø(2) APPLICATION.—A 4-year institution of higher education 

desiring a grant under this section shall submit an application 

to the Director at such time, in such manner, and accompanied 

by such information as the Director may require. The application shall include— 

ø(A) a description of the professional science master’s degree program that the institution of higher education will 

implement; 

ø(B) a description of how the professional science master’s degree program at the institution of higher education 

will produce individuals for the workforce in high-need 

fields; 

ø(C) the amount of funding from non-Federal sources, including from private industries, that the institution of 

higher education shall use to support the professional 

science master’s degree program; and 

ø(D) an assurance that the institution of higher education shall encourage students in the professional science 

master’s degree program to apply for all forms of Federal 

assistance available to such students, including applicable 

graduate fellowships and student financial assistance 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
172 

under titles IV and VII of the Higher Education Act of 

1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq., 1133 et seq.). 

ø(3) PREFERENCES.—The Director shall give preference in 

making awards to 4-year institutions of higher education seeking Federal funding to create or improve professional science 

master’s degree programs, to those applicants— 

ø(A) located in States with low percentages of citizens 

with graduate or professional degrees, as determined by 

the Bureau of the Census, that demonstrate success in 

meeting the unique needs of the corporate, non-profit, and 

government communities in the State, as evidenced by providing internships for professional science master’s degree 

students or similar partnership arrangements; or 

ø(B) that secure more than two-thirds of the funding for 

such professional science master’s degree programs from 

sources other than the Federal Government. 

ø(4) NUMBER OF GRANTS; TIME PERIOD OF GRANTS.— 

ø(A) NUMBER OF GRANTS.—Subject to the availability of 

appropriated funds, the Director shall award grants under 

paragraph (1) to a maximum of 200 4-year institutions of 

higher education. 

ø(B) TIME PERIOD OF GRANTS.—Grants awarded under 

this section shall be for one 3-year term. Grants may be 

renewed only once for a maximum of 2 additional years. 

ø(5) EVALUATION AND REPORTS.— 

ø(A) DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS.— 

Prior to the start of the grant program, the Director, in 

collaboration with 4-year institutions of higher education 

(including applicable graduate schools and academic departments), and industries and Federal agencies that employ science-trained personnel, shall develop performance 

benchmarks to evaluate the pilot programs assisted by 

grants under this section. 

ø(B) EVALUATION.—For each year of the grant period, 

the Director, in consultation with 4-year institutions of 

higher education (including applicable graduate schools 

and academic departments), and industries and Federal 

agencies that employ science-trained personnel, shall complete an evaluation of each program assisted by grants 

under this section. Any program that fails to satisfy the 

performance benchmarks developed under subparagraph 

(A) shall not be eligible for further funding. 

ø(C) REPORT.—Not later than 180 days after the completion of an evaluation described in subparagraph (B), the 

Director shall submit a report to Congress that includes— 

ø(i) the results of the evaluation; and 

ø(ii) recommendations for administrative and legislative action that could optimize the effectiveness of 

the pilot programs, as the Director determines to be 

appropriate.¿ 

* * * * * * * 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
173 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SCIENCE EDUCATION 

ENHANCEMENT ACT 

DIVISION C—OTHER NATIONAL 

DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL 

SECURITY PROGRAMS 

* * * * * * * 

PART E—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAMS

* * * * * * * 

Subpart A—Science Education Enhancement 

* * * * * * * 

øSEC. 3164. SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAMS. 

ø(a) PROGRAMS.—The Secretary is authorized to establish programs to enhance the quality of mathematics, science, and engineering education. Any such programs shall be operated at or 

through the support of Department research and development facilities, shall use the scientific resources of the Department, and 

shall be consistent with the overall Federal plan for education and 

human resources in science and technology developed by the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology. 

ø(b) ORGANIZATION OF SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION PROGRAMS.— 

ø(1) DIRECTOR OF SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS

EDUCATION.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 

Secretary, acting through the Under Secretary for Science (referred to in this subsection as the ‘‘Under Secretary’’), shall appoint a Director of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics 

Education (referred to in this subsection as the ‘‘Director’’) with 

the principal responsibility for administering science, engineering, and mathematics education programs across all functions 

of the Department. 

ø(2) QUALIFICATIONS.—The Director shall be an individual, 

who by reason of professional background and experience, is 

specially qualified to advise the Under Secretary on all matters 

pertaining to science, engineering, and mathematics education 

at the Department. 

ø(3) DUTIES.—The Director shall— 

ø(A) oversee all science, engineering, and mathematics 

education programs of the Department; 

ø(B) represent the Department as the principal interagency liaison for all science, engineering, and mathematics education programs, unless otherwise represented 

by the Secretary or the Under Secretary; 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
174 

ø(C) prepare the annual budget and advise the Under 

Secretary on all budgetary issues for science, engineering, 

and mathematics education programs of the Department; 

ø(D) increase, to the maximum extent practicable, the 

participation and advancement of women and underrepresented minorities at every level of science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics education; and 

ø(E) perform other such matters relating to science, engineering, and mathematics education as are required by 

the Secretary or the Under Secretary. 

ø(4) STAFF AND OTHER RESOURCES.—The Secretary shall assign to the Director such personnel and other resources as the 

Secretary considers necessary to permit the Director to carry 

out the duties of the Director. 

ø(5) ASSESSMENT.— ø(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall offer to enter into 

a contract with the National Academy of Sciences under 

which the National Academy, not later than 5 years after, 

and not later than 10 years after, the date of enactment 

of this paragraph, shall assess the performance of the 

science, engineering, and mathematics education programs 

of the Department. 

ø(B) CONSIDERATIONS.—An assessment under this paragraph shall be conducted taking into consideration, where 

applicable, the effect of science, engineering, and mathematics education programs of the Department on student 

academic achievement in science and mathematics. 

ø(6) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry 

out this subsection. 

ø(c) RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER DEPARTMENT ACTIVITIES.—The programs described in subsection (a) shall supplement and be coordinated with current activities of the Department, but shall not supplant them. 

ø(d) SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION

FUND.—The Secretary shall establish a Science, Engineering, and 

Mathematics Education Fund, using not less than 0.3 percent of 

the amount made available to the Department for research, development, demonstration, and commercial application for each fiscal 

year, to carry out sections 3165, 3166, and 3167. 

ø(e) ANNUAL PLAN FOR ALLOCATION OF EDUCATION FUNDING.— 

The Secretary shall submit to Congress as part of the annual budget submission for a fiscal year a report describing the manner in 

which the Department has complied with subsection (d) for the 

prior fiscal year and the manner in which the Department proposes 

to comply with subsection (d) during the following fiscal year, including— 

ø(1) the total amount of funding for research, development, 

demonstration, and commercial application activities for the 

corresponding fiscal year; 

ø(2) the amounts set aside for the Science, Engineering, and 

Mathematics Education Fund under subsection (d) from funding for research activities, development activities, demonstration activities, and commercial application activities for the 

corresponding fiscal year; and 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
175 

ø(3) a description of how the funds set aside under subsection (d) were allocated for the prior fiscal year and will be 

allocated for the following fiscal year. 

ø(f) PROGRAMS FOR STUDENTS FROM UNDER-REPRESENTED

GROUPS.—In carrying out a program under subsection (a), the Secretary shall give priority to activities that are designed to encourage students from under-represented groups to pursue scientific 

and technical careers.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

Subpart B—Science, Engineering, and 

Mathematics Education Programs 

SEC. 3170. DEFINITIONS. 

In this subpart: 

ø(1) DIRECTOR.—The term ‘‘Director’’ means the Director of 

Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Education.¿ 

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

STEM Education appointed or designated under section 

3171(c)(1). 

(2) ENERGY SYSTEMS SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING.—The term 

‘‘energy systems science and engineering’’ means— 

(A) nuclear science and engineering, including— 

(i) nuclear engineering; 

(ii) nuclear chemistry; 

(iii) radiochemistry; and 

(iv) health physics; 

(B) hydrocarbon system science and engineering, including— 

(i) petroleum or reservoir engineering; 

(ii) environmental geoscience; 

(iii) petrophysics; 

(iv) geophysics; 

(v) geochemistry; 

(vi) petroleum geology; 

(vii) ocean engineering; and 

(viii) environmental engineering; 

(C) energy efficiency and renewable energy technology 

systems science and engineering, including with respect 

to— 

(i) solar technology systems; 

(ii) wind technology systems; 

(iii) buildings technology systems; 

(iv) transportation technology systems; 

(v) hydropower systems; and 

(vi) geothermal systems; and 

(D) energy storage and distribution systems science and 

engineering, including with respect to— 

(i) energy storage; and 

(ii) energy delivery. 

ø(2)¿ (3) NATIONAL LABORATORY.—The term ‘‘National Laboratory’’ has the meaning given the term in section 2 of the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 15801). 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
176 

(4) STEM.—The term ‘‘STEM’’ means science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. 

øCHAPTER 1—PILOT PROGRAM OF GRANTS TO 

SPECIALTY SCHOOLS FOR SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS 

øSEC. 3171. PILOT PROGRAM OF GRANTS TO SPECIALTY SCHOOLS FOR 

SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS. 

ø(a) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this section is to establish a pilot 

program of grants to States to help establish or expand public, 

statewide specialty secondary schools that provide comprehensive 

science and mathematics (including technology and engineering) 

education to improve the academic achievement of students in 

science and mathematics. 

ø(b) DEFINITION OF SPECIALTY SCHOOL FOR SCIENCE AND MATHE- MATICS.—In this chapter, the term ‘‘specialty school for science and 

mathematics’’ means a public secondary school (including a school 

that provides residential services to students) that— 

ø(1) serves students residing in the State in which the school 

is located; and 

ø(2) offers to those students a high-quality, comprehensive 

science and mathematics (including technology and engineering) curriculum designed to improve the academic achievement 

of students in science and mathematics. 

ø(c) PILOT PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.— ø(1) IN GENERAL.—From the amounts authorized under subsection (i), the Secretary, acting through the Director and in 

consultation with the Director of the National Science Foundation, shall award grants, on a competitive basis, to States in 

order to provide assistance to the States for the costs of establishing or expanding public, statewide specialty schools for 

science and mathematics. 

ø(2) RESOURCES.—The Director shall ensure that appropriate 

resources of the Department, including the National Laboratories, are available to schools funded under this section in 

order to— 

ø(A) increase experiential, hands-on learning opportunities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 

for students attending such schools; and 

ø(B) provide ongoing professional development opportunities for teachers employed at such schools. 

ø(3) ASSISTANCE.—Consistent with sections 3165 and 3166, 

the Director shall make available from funds authorized in this 

section to carry out a program using scientific and engineering 

staff of the National Laboratories, during which the staff— 

ø(A) assists teachers in teaching courses at the schools 

funded under this section; 

ø(B) uses National Laboratory scientific equipment in 

teaching the courses; and 

ø(C) uses distance education and other technologies to 

provide assistance described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) 

to schools funded under this section that are not located 

near the National Laboratories. 

ø(4) RESTRICTIONS.— 

ø(A) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FUNDED SPECIALTY SCHOOLS

PER STATE.—No State shall receive funding for more than 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
177 

1 specialty school for science and mathematics for a fiscal 

year. 

ø(B) MAXIMUM AMOUNT AND DURATION OF GRANTS.—A 

grant awarded to a State for a specialty school for science 

and mathematics under this section— 

ø(i) shall not exceed $2,000,000 for a fiscal year; and 

ø(ii) shall not be provided for more than 3 fiscal 

years. 

ø(d) FEDERAL AND NON-FEDERAL SHARES.— 

ø(1) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of the costs described in subsection (c)(1) shall not exceed 33 percent. 

ø(2) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The non-Federal share of the 

costs described in subsection (c)(1) shall be— 

ø(A) not less than 67 percent; and 

ø(B) provided from non-Federal sources, in cash or in 

kind, fairly evaluated, including services. 

ø(e) APPLICATION.—To be eligible to receive a grant under this 

section, a State shall submit to the Director an application at such 

time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Director may require that describes— 

ø(1) the process by which and selection criteria with which 

the State will select and designate a school as a specialty 

school for science and mathematics in accordance with this section; 

ø(2) how the State will ensure that funds made available 

under this section are used to establish or expand a specialty 

school for science and mathematics— 

ø(A) in accordance with the activities described in subsection (g); and 

ø(B) that has the capacity to improve the academic 

achievement of all students in all core academic subjects, 

and particularly in science and mathematics; 

ø(3) how the State will measure the extent to which the 

school increases student academic achievement on State academic achievement standards in science, mathematics, and, to 

the maximum extent applicable, technology and engineering; 

ø(4) the curricula and materials to be used in the school; 

ø(5) the availability of funds from non-Federal sources for 

the costs of the activities authorized under this section; and 

ø(6) how the State will use technical assistance and support 

from the Department, including the National Laboratories, and 

other entities with experience and expertise in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education, including institutions of higher education. 

ø(f) DISTRIBUTION.—In awarding grants under this section, the 

Director shall— 

ø(1) ensure a wide, equitable distribution among States that 

propose to serve students from urban and rural areas; and 

ø(2) provide equal consideration to States without National 

Laboratories. 

ø(g) USES OF FUNDS.— 

ø(1) REQUIREMENT.—A State that receives a grant under this 

section shall use the funds made available through the grant 

to— 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
178 

ø(A) employ proven strategies and methods for improving student learning and teaching in science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics; 

ø(B) integrate into the curriculum of the school comprehensive science and mathematics education, including 

instruction and assessments in science, mathematics, and 

to the extent applicable, technology and engineering that 

are aligned with the academic content and student academic achievement standards of the State, within the 

meaning of section 1111 of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311); 

ø(C) create opportunities for enhanced and ongoing professional development for teachers that improves the 

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics content 

knowledge of the teachers; and 

ø(D) design and implement hands-on laboratory experiences to help prepare students to pursue postsecondary 

studies in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields. 

ø(2) SPECIAL RULE.—Grant funds under this section may be 

used for activities described in paragraph (1) only if the activities are directly relating to improving student academic 

achievement in science, mathematics, and to the extent applicable, technology and engineering. 

ø(h) EVALUATION AND REPORT.— 

ø(1) STATE EVALUATION AND REPORT.— 

ø(A) EVALUATION.—Each State that receives a grant 

under this section shall develop and carry out an evaluation and accountability plan for the activities funded 

through the grant that measures the impact of the activities, including measurable objectives for improved student 

academic achievement on State science, mathematics, and, 

to the maximum extent applicable, technology and engineering assessments. 

ø(B) REPORT.—The State shall submit to the Director a 

report containing the results of the evaluation and accountability plan. 

ø(2) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 2 years after the 

date of enactment of the PACE–Energy Act, the Director shall 

submit a report detailing the impact of the activities assisted 

with funds made available under this section to— 

ø(A) the Committee on Science and Technology of the 

House of Representatives; 

ø(B) the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of 

the Senate; and 

ø(C) the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 

Pensions of the Senate. 

ø(i) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section— 

ø(1) $14,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; 

ø(2) $22,500,000 for fiscal year 2009; and 

ø(3) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2010. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
179 

øCHAPTER 2—EXPERIENTIAL-BASED LEARNING 

OPPORTUNITIES 

øSEC. 3175. EXPERIENTIAL-BASED LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES. 

ø(a) INTERNSHIPS AUTHORIZED.— 

ø(1) IN GENERAL.—From the amounts authorized under subsection (f), the Secretary, acting through the Director, shall establish a summer internship program for middle school and 

secondary school students that shall— 

ø(A) provide the students with internships at the National Laboratories; 

ø(B) promote experiential, hands-on learning in science, 

technology, engineering, or mathematics; and 

ø(C) be of at least 2 weeks in duration. 

ø(2) RESIDENTIAL SERVICES.—The Director may provide residential services to students participating in the internship program authorized under paragraph (1). 

ø(b) SELECTION CRITERIA.— 

ø(1) IN GENERAL.—The Director shall establish criteria to determine the sufficient level of academic preparedness necessary 

for a student to be eligible for an internship under this section. 

ø(2) PARTICIPATION.—The Director shall ensure the participation of students from a wide distribution of States, including 

States without National Laboratories. 

ø(3) STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT.—The Director may consider the 

academic achievement of middle and secondary school students 

in determining eligibility under this section, in accordance with 

paragraphs (1) and (2). 

ø(c) PRIORITY.— 

ø(1) IN GENERAL.—The Director shall give priority for an internship under this section to a student who meets the eligibility criteria described in subsection (b) and who attends a 

school— 

ø(A)(i) in which not less than 30 percent of the children 

enrolled in the school are from low-income families; or 

ø(ii) that is designated with a school locale code of 41, 

42, or 43, as determined by the Secretary of Education; 

and 

ø(B) for which there is— 

ø(i) a high percentage of teachers who are not teaching in the academic subject areas or grade levels in 

which the teachers were trained to teach; 

ø(ii) a high teacher turnover rate; or 

ø(iii) a high percentage of teachers with emergency, 

provisional, or temporary certification or licenses. 

ø(2) COORDINATION.—The Director shall consult with the 

Secretary of Education in order to determine whether a student meets the priority requirements of this subsection. 

ø(d) OUTREACH AND EXPERIENTIAL-BASED PROGRAMS FOR MINOR- ITY STUDENTS.— ø(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, acting through the Director, in cooperation with Hispanic-serving institutions, historically Black colleges and universities, tribally controlled colleges 

and universities, Alaska Native- and Native Hawaiian-serving 

institutions, and other minority-serving institutions and nonVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00185 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
180 

profit entities with substantial experience relating to outreach 

and experiential-based learning projects, shall establish outreach and experiential-based learning programs that will encourage underrepresented minority students in kindergarten 

through grade 12 to pursue careers in science, engineering, 

and mathematics. 

ø(2) COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT.—The Secretary shall ensure 

that the programs established under paragraph (1) involve, to 

the maximum extent practicable— 

ø(A) participation by parents and educators; and 

ø(B) the establishment of partnerships with business organizations and appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies. 

ø(3) DISTRIBUTION.—The Secretary shall ensure that the programs established under paragraph (1) are located in diverse 

geographic regions of the United States, to the maximum extent practicable. 

ø(e) EVALUATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN.—The Director shall 

develop an evaluation and accountability plan for the activities 

funded under this chapter that objectively measures the impact of 

the activities. 

ø(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated to carry out this section $7,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2010. 

øCHAPTER 3—NATIONAL LABORATORIES CENTERS OF 

EXCELLENCE IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION 

øSEC. 3181. NATIONAL LABORATORIES CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE IN 

SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION. 

ø(a) DEFINITION OF HIGH-NEED PUBLIC SECONDARY SCHOOL.—In 

this section, the term ‘‘high-need public secondary school’’ means a 

secondary school— 

ø(1) with a high concentration of low-income individuals (as 

defined in section 1707 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6537)); or 

ø(2) designated with a school locale code of 41, 42, or 43, as 

determined by the Secretary of Education. 

ø(b) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary shall establish at each of 

the National Laboratories a program to support a Center of Excellence in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (referred to in this section as a ‘‘Center of Excellence’’) in at least 1 

high-need public secondary school located in the region served by 

the National Laboratory to provide assistance in accordance with 

subsection (f). 

ø(c) COLLABORATION.— 

ø(1) IN GENERAL.—To comply with subsection (g), each highneed public secondary school selected as a Center of Excellence 

and the National Laboratory shall form a partnership with a 

school, department, or program of education at an institution 

of higher education. 

ø(2) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—The partnership may include a 

nonprofit entity with demonstrated experience and effectiveVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00186 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
181 

ness in science or mathematics, as agreed to by other members 

of the partnership. 

ø(d) SELECTION.— ø(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, acting through the Director, shall establish criteria to guide the National Laboratories 

in selecting the sites for Centers of Excellence. 

ø(2) PROCESS.—A National Laboratory shall select a site for 

a Center of Excellence through an open, widely-publicized, and 

competitive process. 

ø(e) GOALS.—The Secretary shall establish goals and performance assessments for each Center of Excellence authorized under 

subsection (b). 

ø(f) ASSISTANCE.—Consistent with sections 3165 and 3166, the 

Director shall make available necessary assistance for a program 

established under this section through the use of scientific and engineering staff of a National Laboratory, including the use of 

staff— 

ø(1) to assist teachers in teaching a course at a Center of Excellence in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics; and 

ø(2) to use National Laboratory scientific equipment in the 

teaching of the course. 

ø(g) SPECIAL RULES.—A Center of Excellence in a region shall ensure— 

ø(1) provision of clinical practicum, student teaching, or internship experiences for science, technology, and mathematics 

teacher candidates as part of the teacher preparation program 

of the Center of Excellence; 

ø(2) provision of supervision and mentoring for teacher candidates in the teacher preparation program; and 

ø(3) to the maximum extent practicable, provision of professional development for veteran teachers in the public secondary schools in the region. 

ø(h) EVALUATION.—The Secretary shall consider the results of 

performance assessments required under subsection (e) in determining the contract award fee of a National Laboratory management and operations contractor. 

ø(i) PLAN.—The Director shall— 

ø(1) develop an evaluation and accountability plan for the activities funded under this section that objectively measures the 

impact of the activities; and 

ø(2) disseminate information obtained from those measurements. 

ø(j) NO EFFECT ON SIMILAR PROGRAMS.—Nothing in this section 

displaces or otherwise affects any similar program being carried 

out as of the date of enactment of this section at any National Laboratory under any other provision of law. 

øCHAPTER 4—SUMMER INSTITUTES 

øSEC. 3185. SUMMER INSTITUTES. 

ø(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

ø(1) ELIGIBLE PARTNER.—The term ‘‘eligible partner’’ 

means— 

ø(A) the science, engineering, or mathematics department at an institution of higher education, acting in coVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00187 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
182 

ordination with a school, department, or program of education at an institution of higher education that provides 

training for teachers and principals; or 

ø(B) a nonprofit entity with expertise in providing professional development for science, technology, engineering, 

or mathematics teachers. 

ø(2) SUMMER INSTITUTE.—The term ‘‘summer institute’’ 

means an institute, operated during the summer, that— 

ø(A) is hosted by a National Laboratory or an eligible 

partner; 

ø(B) is operated for a period of not less than 2 weeks; 

ø(C) includes, as a component, a program that provides 

direct interaction between students and faculty, including 

personnel of 1 or more National Laboratories who have scientific expertise; 

ø(D) provides for follow-up training, during the academic 

year, that is conducted in the classroom; and 

ø(E) provides hands-on science, technology, engineering, 

or mathematics laboratory experience for not less than 2 

days. 

ø(b) SUMMER INSTITUTE PROGRAMS AUTHORIZED.— 

ø(1) PROGRAMS AT THE NATIONAL LABORATORIES.—The Secretary, acting through the Director, shall establish or expand 

programs of summer institutes at each of the National Laboratories to provide additional training to strengthen the science, 

technology, engineering, and mathematics teaching skills of 

teachers employed at public schools for kindergarten through 

grade 12, in accordance with the activities authorized under 

paragraphs (3) and (4). 

ø(2) PROGRAMS WITH ELIGIBLE PARTNERS.— 

ø(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, acting through the Director, shall identify and provide assistance as described in 

subparagraph (C) to eligible partners to establish or expand programs of summer institutes that provide additional training to strengthen the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics teaching skills of teachers employed at public schools for kindergarten through grade 12, 

in accordance with paragraphs (3) and (4). 

ø(B) SELECTION CRITERIA.—In identifying eligible partners under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall require 

that partner institutions describe— 

ø(i) how the partner institution has the capability to 

administer the program in accordance with this section, which may include a description of any existing 

programs at the institution of the applicant that are 

targeted at education of science and mathematics 

teachers and the number of teachers graduated annually from the programs; and 

ø(ii) how the partner institution will assist the National Laboratory in carrying out the activities described in paragraphs (3) and (4). 

ø(C) ASSISTANCE.—Consistent with sections 3165 and 

3166, the Director shall make available funds authorized 

under this section to carry out a program using scientific 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
183 

and engineering staff of the National Laboratories, during 

which the staff— 

ø(i) assists in providing training to teachers at summer institutes; and 

ø(ii) uses National Laboratory scientific equipment 

in the training. 

ø(3) REQUIRED ACTIVITIES.—Funds authorized under this section shall be used for— 

ø(A) creating opportunities for enhanced and ongoing 

professional development for teachers that improves the 

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics content 

knowledge of the teachers; 

ø(B) training to improve the ability of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics teachers to translate 

content knowledge and recent developments in pedagogy 

into classroom practice, including training to use curricula 

that are— 

ø(i) based on scientific research; and 

ø(ii) aligned with challenging State academic content standards; 

ø(C) training on the use and integration of technology in 

the classrooms; and 

ø(D) supplemental and follow-up professional development activities as described in subsection (a)(2)(D). 

ø(4) ADDITIONAL USES OF FUNDS.—Funds authorized under 

this section may be used for— 

ø(A) training and classroom materials to assist in carrying out paragraph (3); 

ø(B) expenses associated with scientific and engineering 

staff at the National Laboratories assisting in providing 

training to teachers at summer institutes; 

ø(C) instruction in the use and integration of data and 

assessments to inform and instruct classroom practice; and 

ø(D) stipends and travel expenses for teachers participating in the program. 

ø(c) PRIORITY.—To the maximum extent practicable, the Director 

shall ensure that each summer institute program authorized under 

subsection (b) provides training to— 

ø(1) teachers from a wide range of school districts; 

ø(2) teachers from high-need school districts; and 

ø(3) teachers from groups underrepresented in the fields of 

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics teaching, including women and members of minority groups. 

ø(d) COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION.—The Director shall consult and coordinate with the Secretary of Education and the Director of the National Science Foundation regarding the implementation of the programs authorized under subsection (b). 

ø(e) EVALUATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN.— 

ø(1) IN GENERAL.—The Director shall develop an evaluation 

and accountability plan for the activities funded under this section that measures the impact of the activities. 

ø(2) CONTENTS.—The evaluation and accountability plan 

shall include— 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
184 

ø(A) measurable objectives to increase the number of 

science, technology, and mathematics teachers who participate in the summer institutes involved; and 

ø(B) measurable objectives for improved student academic achievement on State science, mathematics, and to 

the maximum extent applicable, technology and engineering assessments. 

ø(3) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—The Secretary shall submit to 

Congress with the annual budget submission of the Secretary 

a report on how the activities assisted under this section improve the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 

teaching skills of participating teachers. 

ø(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section— 

ø(1) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; 

ø(2) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; and 

ø(3) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.¿ 

CHAPTER 1—STEM EDUCATION 

SEC. 3171. STEM EDUCATION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Energy shall develop, conduct, 

support, promote, and coordinate formal and informal educational 

activities that leverage the Department’s unique content expertise 

and facilities to contribute to improving STEM education at all levels in the United States, and to enhance awareness and understanding of STEM, including energy sciences, in order to create a 

diverse skilled scientific and technical workforce essential to meeting the challenges facing the Department and the Nation in the 21st 

century. 

(b) PROGRAMS.—The Secretary shall carry out evidence-based programs designed to increase student interest and participation, improve public literacy and support, and improve the teaching and 

learning of energy systems science and engineering and other STEM 

disciplines supported by the Department. Programs authorized 

under this subsection may include— 

(1) informal educational programming designed to excite and 

inspire students and the general public about energy systems 

science and engineering and other STEM disciplines supported 

by the Department, while strengthening their content knowledge 

in these fields; 

(2) teacher training and professional development opportunities for pre-service and in-service elementary and secondary 

teachers designed to increase the content knowledge of teachers 

in energy systems science and engineering and other STEM disciplines supported by the Department, including through 

hands-on research experiences; 

(3) research opportunities for secondary school students, including internships at the National Laboratories, that provide 

secondary school students with hands-on research experiences 

as well as exposure to working scientists; 

(4) research opportunities at the National Laboratories for 

undergraduate and graduate students pursuing degrees in energy systems science and engineering and other STEM disciplines supported by the Department; and 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
185 

(5) competitive scholarships, fellowships, and traineeships for 

undergraduate and graduate students in energy systems science 

and engineering and other STEM disciplines supported by the 

Department. 

(c) ORGANIZATION OF STEM EDUCATION PROGRAMS.— (1) DIRECTOR OF STEM EDUCATION.—The Secretary shall appoint or designate a Director of STEM Education, who shall 

have the principal responsibility to oversee and coordinate all 

programs and activities of the Department in support of STEM 

education, including energy systems science and engineering 

education, across all functions of the Department. 

(2) QUALIFICATIONS.—The Director shall be an individual, 

who by reason of professional background and experience, is 

specially qualified to advise the Secretary on all matters pertaining to STEM education, including energy systems science 

and engineering education, at the Department. 

(3) DUTIES.—The Director shall— 

(A) oversee and coordinate all programs in support of 

STEM education, including energy systems science and engineering education, across all functions of the Department; 

(B) represent the Department as the principal interagency 

liaison for all STEM education programs, unless otherwise 

represented by the Secretary, the Under Secretary for 

Science, or the Under Secretary for Energy; 

(C) prepare the annual budget and advise the Under Secretary for Science and the Under Secretary for Energy on 

all budgetary issues for STEM education, including energy 

systems science and engineering education, relative to the 

programs of the Department; 

(D) establish, periodically update, and maintain a publicly accessible online inventory of STEM education programs and activities, including energy systems science and 

engineering education programs and activities; 

(E) develop, implement, and update the Department of 

Energy STEM education strategic plan, as required by subsection (d); 

(F) increase, to the maximum extent practicable, the participation and advancement of women and underrepresented minorities at every level of STEM education, including energy systems science and engineering education; 

and 

(G) perform such other matters relating to STEM education as are required by the Secretary, the Under Secretary for Science, or the Under Secretary for Energy. 

(d) DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY STEM EDUCATION STRATEGIC PLAN.— 

The Director of STEM education appointed or designated under 

subsection (c)(1) shall develop, implement, and update once every 3 

years a 3-year STEM education strategic plan for the Department, 

which shall— 

(1) identify and prioritize annual and long-term STEM education goals and objectives for the Department that are aligned 

with the overall goals of the National Science and Technology 

Council Committee on STEM Education Strategic plan required 

under section 301(d)(2) of the STEM Education Coordination 

Act of 2010; 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
186 

(2) describe the role of each program or activity of the Department in contributing to the goals and objectives identified 

under paragraph (1); 

(3) specify the metrics that will be used to assess progress toward achieving those goals and objectives; and 

(4) describe the approaches that will be taken to assess the effectiveness of each STEM education program and activity supported by the Department. 

(e) OUTREACH TO STUDENTS FROM UNDERREPRESENTED GROUPS.— 

In carrying out a program authorized under this section, the Secretary shall give consideration to the goal of promoting the participation of individuals identified in section 33 or 34 of the Science 

and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act (42 U.S.C. 1885a or 

1885b). 

(f) CONSULTATION AND PARTNERSHIP WITH OTHER AGENCIES.—In 

carrying out the programs and activities authorized under this section, the Secretary shall— 

(1) consult with the Secretary of Education and the Director 

of the National Science Foundation regarding activities designed to improve elementary and secondary STEM education; 

and 

(2) consult and partner with the Director of the National 

Science Foundation in carrying out programs under this section 

designed to build capacity in STEM education at the undergraduate and graduate level, including by supporting excellent 

proposals in energy systems science and engineering that are 

submitted for funding to the Foundation’s Advanced Technological Education Program. 

CHAPTER 5—NATIONAL ENERGY EDUCATION 

DEVELOPMENT 

SEC. 3191. NATIONAL ENERGY EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, acting through the Director and 

in consultation with the Director of the National Science Foundation, shall establish a program to coordinate and make available to 

teachers and students øweb-based¿, through a publicly available 

website, kindergarten through high school science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education resources relating to the 

science and energy mission of the Department, including existing 

instruction materials and protocols for classroom laboratory experiments and project-based learning opportunities. 

(b) ENERGY EDUCATION.—The materials and other resources required under subsection (a) shall include instruction relating to— 

(1) the science of energy, including energy systems science 

and engineering; 

* * * * * * * 

ø(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section— 

ø(1) $500,000 for fiscal year 2008; and 

ø(2) such sums as necessary for each fiscal year thereafter.¿ 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
187 

øCHAPTER 6—ADMINISTRATION 

øSEC. 3195. MENTORING PROGRAM. 

ø(a) IN GENERAL.—As part of the programs established under 

chapters 1, 3, and 4, the Director shall establish a program to recruit and provide mentors for women and underrepresented minorities who are interested in careers in science, engineering, and 

mathematics. 

ø(b) PAIRING.—The program shall pair mentors with women and 

minorities who are in programs of study at specialty schools for 

science and mathematics, Centers of Excellence, and summer institutes established under chapters 1, 3, and 4, respectively. 

ø(c) PROGRAM EVALUATION.—The Secretary shall annually— 

ø(1) use metrics to evaluate the success of the programs established under subsection (a); and 

ø(2) submit to Congress a report that describes the results 

of each evaluation.¿ 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND 

TECHNOLOGY ACT 

* * * * * * * 

ESTABLISHMENT, FUNCTIONS, AND ACTIVITIES

SEC. 2. (a) * * * 

(b) The Secretary of Commerce (hereafter in this Act referred to 

as the ‘‘Secretary’’) acting through the Director of the Institute 

(hereafter in this Act referred to as the ‘‘Director’’) is authorized to 

take all actions necessary and appropriate to accomplish the purposes of this Act, including the following functions of the Institute— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(12) to invent, develop, and (when appropriate) promote 

transfer to the private sector of measurement devices to serve 

special national needs; øand¿ 

(13) to coordinate Federal, State, and local technical standards activities and conformity assessment activities, with private sector technical standards activities and conformity assessment activities, with the goal of eliminating unnecessary 

duplication and complexity in the development and promulgation of conformity assessment requirements and measuresø.¿; 

(14) to promote collaboration among Federal departments 

and agencies and private sector stakeholders in the development 

and implementation of standards and conformity assessment 

frameworks to address specific Federal Government policy 

goals; and 

(15) to convene Federal departments and agencies, as appropriate, to— 

(A) coordinate and determine Federal Government positions on specific policy issues related to the development of 

international technical standards and conformity assessment-related activities; and 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
188 

(B) coordinate Federal department and agency engagement in the development of international technical standards and conformity assessment-related activities. 

* * * * * * * 

øSEC. 4.¿ 

SEC. 4. UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR STANDARDS AND 

TECHNOLOGY. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There shall be in the Department of Commerce an Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology (in this section referred to as the ‘‘Under Secretary’’). 

(b) APPOINTMENT.—The Under Secretary shall be appointed by 

the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. 

(c) COMPENSATION.—The Under Secretary shall be compensated 

at the rate in effect for level III of the Executive Schedule under section 5314 of title 5, United States Code. 

(d) DUTIES.—The Under Secretary shall serve as the Director of 

the Institute and shall perform such duties as required of the Director by the Secretary under this Act or by law. 

(e) APPLICABILITY.—The individual serving as the Director of the 

Institute on the date of enactment of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Authorization Act of 2010 shall also serve as 

the Under Secretary until such time as a successor is appointed 

under subsection (b). 

SEC. 5. øThe Director shall be appointed by the President, by and 

with the advice and consent of the Senate.¿ The Director shall report directly to the Secretary and shall have the general supervision of the Institute, its equipment, and the exercise of its functions. The Director shall make an annual report to the Secretary 

of Commerce. The Director may issue, when necessary, bulletins 

for public distribution, containing such information as may be of 

value to the public or facilitate the exercise of the functions of the 

Institute. øThe Director shall be compensated at the rate in effect 

for level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 

5, United States Code. Until such time as the Director assumes office under this section, the most recent Director of the National Bureau of Standards shall serve as Director.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

VISITING COMMITTEE ON ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY

SEC. 10. (a) There is established within the Institute a Visiting 

Committee on Advanced Technology (hereafter in this Act referred 

to as the ‘‘Committee’’). The Committee shall consist of ø15 members¿ at least 15, but not more than 20, members appointed by the 

Director, øat least 10¿ at least 13 of whom shall be from United 

States industry. The Director shall appoint as original members of 

the Committee any final members of the National Bureau of Standards Visiting Committee who wish to serve in such capacity. In addition to any powers and functions otherwise granted to it by this 

Act, the Committee shall review and make recommendations regarding general policy for the Institute, its organization, its budget, 

and its programs within the framework of applicable national policies as set forth by the President and the Congress. 

* * * * * * * 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
189 

(h)(1) The Committee shall render an annual report to the Secretary for submission to the Congress not later than 30 days after 

the submittal to Congress of the President’s annual budget request 

in each year. Such report shall deal essentially, though not necessarily exclusively, with policy issues or matters which affect the 

Institute, including the øProgram established under section 28¿ 

programs established under sections 28 and 34, or with which the 

Committee in its official role as the private sector policy advisor of 

the Institute is concerned. Each such report shall identify areas of 

research and research techniques of the Institute of potential importance to the long-term competitiveness of United States industry, in which the Institute possesses special competence, which 

could be used to assist United States enterprises and United States 

industrial joint research and development ventures. Such report 

also shall comment on the programmatic planning document and 

updates thereto submitted to Congress by the Director under subsections (c) and (d) of section 23. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 18. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) UNDERREPRESENTED MINORITIES.—In evaluating applications 

for fellowships under this section, the Director shall give consideration to the goal of promoting the participation of underrepresented 

minorities in research areas supported by the Institute. 

SEC. 19. The Institute in conjunction with the National Academy 

of Sciences, shall establish and conduct a post-doctoral fellowship 

program, subject to the availability of appropriations, which shall 

be organized and carried out in substantially the same manner as 

the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council PostDoctoral Research Associate Program that was in effect prior to 

1986, and which shall include not less than twenty nor more than 

120 new fellows per fiscal year. In evaluating applications for fellowships under this section, the Director shall give consideration to 

the goal of promoting the participation of underrepresented minorities in research areas supported by the Institute. 

SEC. 19A. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) The Director shall develop and issue procedures and selection 

criteria for participants in the program. The Director shall give special consideration to an application from a teacher from a high-need 

school, as defined in section 200 of the Higher Education Act of 

1965 (20 U.S.C. 1021). 

* * * * * * * 

REGIONAL CENTERS FOR THE TRANSFER OF MANUFACTURING

TECHNOLOGY

SEC. 25. (a) The Secretary, through the Director and, if appropriate, through other officials, shall provide assistance for the creation and support of Regional Centers for the Transfer of Manufacturing Technology (hereafter in this Act referred to as the ‘‘Centers’’). Such centers shall be affiliated with any United Statesbased nonprofit institution or organization, or group thereof, that 

applies for and is awarded financial assistance under this section 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
190 

in accordance with the description published by the Secretary in 

the Federal Register under subsection (c)(2). Individual awards 

shall be decided on the basis of merit review. The objective of the 

Centers is to enhance productivity and technological performance 

in United States manufacturing through— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(4) the active dissemination of scientific, engineering, technical, and management information about manufacturing to industrial firms, including small- and medium-sized manufacturing companies; øand¿ 

(5) the utilization, when appropriate, of the expertise and capability that exists in Federal laboratories other than the 

Instituteø.¿; and 

(6) providing to community colleges information about the job 

skills needed in small- and medium-sized manufacturing businesses in the regions they serve. 

* * * * * * * 

(c)(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(7) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1), (3), and (5), for fiscal year 

2011 through fiscal year 2015, the Secretary may not provide to a 

Center more than 50 percent of the costs incurred by such Center 

and may not require that a Center’s cost share exceed 50 percent. 

(8) Not later than 4 years after the date of enactment of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Authorization Act of 

2010, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the cost 

share requirements under the program. The report shall— 

(A) discuss various cost share structures, including the cost 

share structure in place prior to such date of enactment and the 

cost share structure in place under paragraph (7), and the effect 

of such cost share structures on individual Centers and the 

overall program; and 

(B) include a recommendation for how best to structure the 

cost share requirement after fiscal year 2015 to provide for the 

long-term sustainability of the program. 

* * * * * * * 

(e) MEP ADVISORY BOARD.— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(4) FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT.—In discharging its 

duties under this subsection, the MEP Advisory Board shall 

function solely in an advisory capacity, in accordance with the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act.¿ 

(4) FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT APPLICABILITY.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—In discharging its duties under this 

subsection, the MEP Advisory Board shall function solely 

in an advisory capacity, in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 

(B) EXCEPTION.—Section 14 of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act shall not apply to the MEP Advisory Board. 

* * * * * * * 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
191 

(g) INNOVATIVE SERVICES INITIATIVE.— (1) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Director may establish, within the 

Centers program under this section, an innovative services initiative to assist small- and medium-sized manufacturers in— 

(A) reducing their energy usage and environmental waste 

to improve profitability; and 

(B) accelerating the domestic commercialization of new 

product technologies, including components for renewable 

energy systems. 

(2) MARKET DEMAND.—The Director may not undertake any activity to accelerate the domestic commercialization of a new product 

technology under this subsection unless an analysis of market demand for the new product technology has been conducted. 

(h) REPORTS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—In submitting the 3-year programmatic 

planning document and annual updates under section 23, the 

Director shall include an assessment of the Director’s governance of the program established under this section. 

(2) CRITERIA.—In conducting such assessment, the Director 

shall use the criteria established pursuant to the Malcolm 

Baldrige National Quality Award under section 17(d)(1)(C) of 

the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 

U.S.C. 3711a(d)(1)(C)). 

(i) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘community college’’ 

means an institution of higher education (as defined under section 

101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a))) at 

which the highest degree that is predominately awarded to students 

is an associate’s degree. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 28. TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION PROGRAM. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(k) TIP ADVISORY BOARD.— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(4) ADVISORY CAPACITY.—In discharging its duties under 

this subsection, the TIP Advisory Board shall function solely in 

an advisory capacity, in accordance with the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act.¿ 

(4) FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT APPLICABILITY.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—In discharging its duties under this 

subsection, the TIP Advisory Board shall function solely in 

an advisory capacity, in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 

(B) EXCEPTION.—Section 14 of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act shall not apply to the TIP Advisory Board. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 34. BIOSCIENCE RESEARCH PROGRAM. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Director shall establish a bioscience research program to support research and development of standard 

reference materials, measurements, methods, and genomic and other 

data to advance— 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
192 

(1) biological drug research and development; 

(2) molecular diagnostics; 

(3) medical imaging technologies; and 

(4) personalized medicine. 

(b) UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CENTERS.— 

(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Director may establish research 

centers at institutions of higher education (in this section referred to as ‘‘university research centers’’) through a competitive 

application process to conduct research that furthers the objectives of the bioscience research program. 

(2) APPLICATION.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—An institution of higher education seeking to establish a university research center under this subsection shall submit an application to the Director at such 

time, in such manner, and containing such information 

and assurances as the Director may require. 

(B) COMPONENTS.—The application shall include, at a 

minimum, a description of— 

(i) the relevant research and instructional capacity of 

the applicant; 

(ii) the research projects that will be undertaken by 

the applicant; 

(iii) the extent to which the applicant will partner 

with industry and the role industry will play in the research undertaken by the university research center; 

(iv) how the applicant will disseminate research results effectively; and 

(v) the metrics that will be used to evaluate the success of the projects under clause (ii) and the contribution of the university research center in furthering the 

objectives of the bioscience research program. 

(C) SPECIAL CONSIDERATION.—The Director shall give 

special consideration to an application from an institution 

of higher education that is— 

(i) an 1890 Institution, as defined in section 2 of the 

Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7061); 

(ii) a Predominantly Black Institution, as defined in 

section 318 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 

U.S.C. 1059e); 

(iii) a part B institution, as defined in section 322 of 

the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1061); 

(iv) a Tribal College or University, as defined in section 316 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 

U.S.C. 1059c); 

(v) a Native American-serving, nontribal institution, 

as defined in section 319 of the Higher Education Act 

of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1059f); 

(vi) an Asian American and Native American Pacific 

Islander-serving institution, as defined in section 320 

of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1059g); 

(vii) an Alaska Native-serving institution, as defined 

in section 317 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 

U.S.C. 1059d); 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
193 

(viii) a Native Hawaiian-serving institution, as defined in section 317 of the Higher Education Act of 

1965 (20 U.S.C. 1059d); or 

(ix) a Hispanic-serving institution, as defined in section 502 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 

U.S.C. 1101a). 

(3) ASSESSMENT.—Not later than 3 years after the date on 

which a university research center is established and every 3 

years thereafter, the Director shall evaluate the university research center for its contributions to the bioscience research program. 

(4) ANNUAL MEETING.—If the Director establishes more than 

1 university research center, the Director shall convene an annual meeting of researchers from all of the university research 

centers and the Institute to foster collaboration and communication. 

(c) USER FACILITY.—The Director may establish a bioscience user 

facility to provide access to advanced or unique equipment, services, 

materials, and other resources to industry, institutions of higher 

education, nonprofit organizations, and government agencies to perform research and testing. 

(d) POSTDOCTORAL FELLOWS.—The Director shall, to the extent 

practicable, assign 1 or more fellows from the postdoctoral fellowship program established in section 19 to the bioscience research 

program. 

(e) PROGRAMMATIC PLANNING DOCUMENT.—The Director shall ensure that the updates to the programmatic planning document 

transmitted to Congress under section 23(d) include the bioscience 

research program. 

(f) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

(1) BIOSCIENCE RESEARCH PROGRAM.—The term ‘‘bioscience 

research program’’ means the research and development program authorized under subsection (a). 

(2) INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION.—The term ‘‘institution of higher education’’ has the same meaning given the term 

in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 

U.S.C. 1001(a)). 

SEC. ø34.¿ 35. This Act may be cited as the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology Act. 

TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 

PART III—EMPLOYEES 

* * * * * * * 

SUBPART D—PAY AND ALLOWANCES 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 53—PAY RATES AND SYSTEMS 

* * * * * * * 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
194 

SUBCHAPTER II—EXECUTIVE SCHEDULE PAY RATES 

* * * * * * * 

§ 5314. Positions at level III 

Level III of the Executive Schedule applies to the following positions, for which the annual rate of basic pay shall be the rate determined with respect to such level under chapter 11 of title 2, as 

adjusted by section 5318 of this title: 

Solicitor General of the United States. 

* * * * * * * 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology, 

who also serves as Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. 

Associate Attorney General. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 5315. Positions at level IV 

Level IV of the Executive Schedule applies to the following positions, for which the annual rate of basic pay shall be the rate determined with respect to such level under chapter 11 of title 2, as 

adjusted by section 5318 of this title: 

Deputy Administrator of General Services. 

* * * * * * * 

øDirector, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

STEVENSON-WYDLER TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION ACT 

OF 1980 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 24. OFFICE OF INNOVATION AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish an Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship to foster innovation and the commercialization of new technologies, products, processes, and services 

with the goal of promoting productivity and economic growth in the 

United States. 

(b) DUTIES.—The Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship shall 

be responsible for— 

(1) developing and advocating policies to accelerate innovation and advance the commercialization of research and development, including federally funded research and development; 

(2) identifying existing barriers to innovation and commercialization, including access to capital and other resources, and 

ways to overcome those barriers; 

(3) providing access to relevant data, research, and technical 

assistance on innovation and commercialization; 

(4) strengthening collaboration on and coordination of policies relating to innovation and commercialization within the 

Department of Commerce and between the Department of Commerce and other Federal agencies, as appropriate; and 

(5) any other duties as determined by the Secretary. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
195 

(c) ADVISORY COMMITTEE.—The Secretary shall establish an Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship to provide advice 

to the Secretary on carrying out subsection (b). 

SEC. 25. FEDERAL LOAN GUARANTEES FOR INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES IN MANUFACTURING. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary shall establish a program to 

provide loan guarantees for obligations to small- or medium-sized 

manufacturers for the use or production of innovative technologies. 

(b) ELIGIBLE PROJECTS.—A loan guarantee may be made under 

such program only for a project that reequips, expands, or establishes a manufacturing facility in the United States to— 

(1) use an innovative technology or an innovative process in manufacturing; or 

(2) manufacture an innovative technology product or an integral 

component of such product. 

(c) ELIGIBLE BORROWER.—A loan guarantee may be made under 

such program only for a borrower who is a small- or medium-sized 

manufacturer, as determined by the Secretary under the criteria established pursuant to subsection (m). 

(d) LIMITATION ON AMOUNT.—A loan guarantee shall not exceed 

an amount equal to 80 percent of the obligation, as estimated at the 

time at which the loan guarantee is issued. 

(e) LIMITATIONS ON LOAN GUARANTEE.—No loan guarantee shall 

be made unless the Secretary determines that— 

(1) there is a reasonable prospect of repayment of the principal and interest on the obligation by the borrower; 

(2) the amount of the obligation (when combined with 

amounts available to the borrower from other sources) is sufficient to carry out the project; 

(3) the obligation is not subordinate to other financing; 

(4) the obligation bears interest at a rate that does not exceed 

a level that the Secretary determines appropriate, taking into 

account the prevailing rate of interest in the private sector for 

similar loans and risks; and 

(5) the term of an obligation requires full repayment over a 

period not to exceed the lesser of— 

(A) 30 years; or 

(B) 90 percent of the projected useful life, as determined 

by the Secretary, of the physical asset to be financed by the 

obligation. 

(f) DEFAULTS.— 

(1) PAYMENT BY SECRETARY.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—If a borrower defaults (as defined in 

regulations promulgated by the Secretary and specified in 

the loan guarantee) on the obligation, the holder of the loan 

guarantee shall have the right to demand payment of the 

unpaid amount from the Secretary. 

(B) PAYMENT REQUIRED.—Within such period as may be 

specified in the loan guarantee or related agreements, the 

Secretary shall pay to the holder of the loan guarantee the 

unpaid interest on and unpaid principal of the obligation 

as to which the borrower has defaulted, unless the Secretary finds that there was no default by the borrower in 

the payment of interest or principal or that the default has 

been remedied. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
196 

(C) FORBEARANCE.—Nothing in this subsection precludes 

any forbearance by the holder of the obligation for the benefit of the borrower which may be agreed upon by the parties to the obligation and approved by the Secretary. 

(2) SUBROGATION.— (A) IN GENERAL.—If the Secretary makes a payment 

under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall be subrogated to 

the rights, as specified in the loan guarantee, of the recipient of the payment or related agreements including, if appropriate, the authority (notwithstanding any other provision of law) to— 

(i) complete, maintain, operate, lease, or otherwise dispose of any property acquired pursuant to such loan guarantee or related agreement; or 

(ii) permit the borrower, pursuant to an agreement with 

the Secretary, to continue to pursue the purposes of the 

project if the Secretary determines that such an agreement 

is in the public interest. 

(B) SUPERIORITY OF RIGHTS.—The rights of the Secretary, 

with respect to any property acquired pursuant to a loan 

guarantee or related agreements, shall be superior to the 

rights of any other person with respect to the property. 

(3) ACTION BY ATTORNEY GENERAL.— (A) NOTIFICATION.—If the borrower defaults on an obligation, the Secretary shall notify the Attorney General of 

the default. 

(B) RECOVERY.—On notification, the Attorney General 

shall take such action as is appropriate to recover the unpaid principal and interest. 

(g) PAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST BY SECRETARY.—With 

respect to any obligation guaranteed under this section, the Secretary may enter into a contract to pay, and pay, holders of the obligation for and on behalf of the borrower from funds appropriated 

for that purpose the principal and interest payments that become 

due and payable on the unpaid balance of the obligation if the Secretary finds that— 

(1)(A) the borrower is unable to make the payments and is not 

in default; 

(B) it is in the public interest to permit the borrower to continue to pursue the project; and 

(C) the probable net benefit to the Federal Government in 

paying the principal and interest will be greater than that 

which would result in the event of a default; 

(2) the amount of the payment that the Secretary is authorized to pay shall be no greater than the amount of principal 

and interest that the borrower is obligated to pay under the obligation being guaranteed; and 

(3) the borrower agrees to reimburse the Secretary for the payment (including interest) on terms and conditions that are satisfactory to the Secretary. 

(h) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—A loan guarantee under this section 

shall include such detailed terms and conditions as the Secretary 

determines appropriate to— 

(1) protect the interests of the United States in the case of default; and 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
197 

(2) have available all the patents and technology necessary 

for any person selected, including the Secretary, to complete and 

operate the project. 

(i) CONSULTATION.—In establishing the terms and conditions of a 

loan guarantee under this section, the Secretary shall consult with 

the Secretary of the Treasury. 

(j) FEES.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall charge and collect fees 

for loan guarantees in amounts the Secretary determines are 

sufficient to cover applicable administrative expenses. 

(2) AVAILABILITY.—Fees collected under this subsection 

shall— 

(A) be deposited by the Secretary into the Treasury of the 

United States; and 

(B) remain available until expended, subject to such other 

conditions as are contained in annual appropriations Acts. 

(k) RECORDS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—With respect to a loan guarantee under this 

section, the borrower, the lender, and any other appropriate 

party shall keep such records and other pertinent documents as 

the Secretary shall prescribe by regulation, including such 

records as the Secretary may require to facilitate an effective 

audit. 

(2) ACCESS.—The Secretary and the Comptroller General of 

the United States, or their duly authorized representatives, 

shall have access to records and other pertinent documents for 

the purpose of conducting an audit. 

(l) FULL FAITH AND CREDIT.—The full faith and credit of the 

United States is pledged to the payment of all loan guarantees 

issued under this section with respect to principal and interest. 

(m) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary shall issue final regulations 

before making any loan guarantees under the program. Such regulations shall include— 

(1) criteria that the Secretary shall use to determine eligibility 

for loan guarantees under this section, including— 

(A) whether a borrower is a small- or medium-sized manufacturer; and 

(B) whether a borrower demonstrates that a market exists 

for the innovative technology product, or the integral component of such product, to be manufactured, as evidenced 

by written statements of interest from potential purchasers; 

(2) policies and procedures for selecting and monitoring lenders and loan performance; and 

(3) any other policies, procedures, or information necessary to 

implement this section. 

(n) AUDIT.— 

(1) ANNUAL INDEPENDENT AUDITS.—The Secretary shall enter 

into an arrangement with an independent auditor for annual 

evaluations of the program under this section. 

(2) ANNUAL REVIEW.—The Comptroller General shall conduct 

an annual review of the Secretary’s execution of the program 

under this section. 

(3) REPORT.—The results of the independent audit under 

paragraph (1) and the Comptroller General’s review under 

paragraph (2) shall be provided directly to the Committee on 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
198 

Science and Technology of the House of Representatives and the 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 

Senate. 

(o) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Concurrent with the submission to 

Congress of the President’s annual budget request in each year after 

the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall transmit 

to the Committee on Science and Technology of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report containing a summary of all activities carried out under this section. 

(p) COORDINATION AND NONDUPLICATION.—To the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary shall ensure that the activities carried out under this section are coordinated with, and do not duplicate the efforts of, other loan guarantee programs within the Federal 

Government. 

(q) MEP CENTERS.—The Secretary may use centers established 

under section 25 of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k) to provide information about the program established under this section and to conduct outreach to potential borrowers, as appropriate. 

(r) MINIMIZING RISK.—The Secretary shall promulgate regulations and policies to carry out this section in accordance with Office 

of Management and Budget Circular No. A-129, entitled ‘‘Policies 

for Federal Credit Programs and Non-Tax Receivables’’, as in effect 

on the date of enactment of this section. 

(s) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that no loan 

guarantee shall be made under this section unless the borrower 

agrees to use a federally-approved electronic employment eligibility 

verification system to verify the employment eligibility of— 

(1) all persons hired during the contract term by the borrower 

to perform employment duties within the United States; and 

(2) all persons assigned by the borrower to perform work 

within the United States on the project. 

(t) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

(1) COST.—The term ‘‘cost’’ has the meaning given such term 

under section 502 of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 

U.S.C. 661a). 

(2) INNOVATIVE PROCESS.—The term ‘‘innovative process’’ 

means a process that is significantly improved as compared to 

the process in general use in the commercial marketplace in the 

United States at the time the loan guarantee is issued. 

(3) INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY.—The term ‘‘innovative technology’’ means a technology that is significantly improved as 

compared to the technology in general use in the commercial 

marketplace in the United States at the time the loan guarantee 

is issued. 

(4) LOAN GUARANTEE.—The term ‘‘loan guarantee’’ has the 

meaning given such term in section 502 of the Federal Credit 

Reform Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 661a). The term includes a loan 

guarantee commitment (as defined in section 502 of such Act (2 

U.S.C. 661a)). 

(5) OBLIGATION.—The term ‘‘obligation’’ means the loan or 

other debt obligation that is guaranteed under this section. 

(6) PROGRAM.—The term ‘‘program’’ means the loan guarantee program established in subsection (a). 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
199 

(u) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— (1) COST OF LOAN GUARANTEES.—There are authorized to be 

appropriated $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2011 through 

2015 to provide the cost of loan guarantees under this section. 

(2) PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST.—There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out subsection 

(g). 

SEC. 26. REGIONAL INNOVATION PROGRAM. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary shall establish a regional innovation program to encourage and support the development of regional innovation strategies, including regional innovation clusters. 

(b) REGIONAL INNOVATION CLUSTER GRANTS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—As part of the program established under 

subsection (a), the Secretary may award grants on a competitive 

basis to eligible recipients for activities relating to the formation 

and development of regional innovation clusters. 

(2) PERMISSIBLE ACTIVITIES.—Grants awarded under this 

subsection may be used for activities determined appropriate by 

the Secretary, including the following: 

(A) Feasibility studies. 

(B) Planning activities. 

(C) Technical assistance. 

(D) Developing or strengthening communication and collaboration between and among participants of a regional 

innovation cluster. 

(E) Attracting additional participants to a regional innovation cluster. 

(F) Facilitating market development of products and 

services developed by a regional innovation cluster, including through demonstration, deployment, technology transfer, and commercialization activities. 

(G) Developing relationships between a regional innovation cluster and entities or clusters in other regions. 

(3) ELIGIBLE RECIPIENT.—For purposes of this subsection, the 

term ‘‘eligible recipient’’ means any of the following: 

(A) A State. 

(B) An Indian tribe. 

(C) A city or other political subdivision of a State. 

(D) An entity that— 

(i) is a nonprofit organization, an institution of higher education, a public-private partnership, or an economic development organization or similar entity; and 

(ii) has an application that is supported by a State 

or a political subdivision of a State. 

(E) A consortium of any of the entities listed in subparagraphs (A) through (D). 

(4) APPLICATION.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—An eligible recipient shall submit an 

application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, 

and containing such information and assurances as the 

Secretary may require. 

(B) COMPONENTS.—The application shall include, at a 

minimum, a description of the regional innovation cluster 

supported by the proposed activity, including a description 

of the following: 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
200 

(i) Whether the regional innovation cluster is supported by the private sector, State and local governments, and other relevant stakeholders. 

(ii) How the existing participants in the regional innovation cluster will encourage and solicit participation by all types of entities that might benefit from participation, including newly formed entities and those 

rival to existing participants. 

(iii) The extent to which the regional innovation cluster is likely to stimulate innovation and have a positive 

impact on regional economic growth and development. 

(iv) Whether the participants in the regional innovation cluster have access to, or contribute to, a welltrained workforce. 

(v) Whether the participants in the regional innovation cluster are capable of attracting additional funds 

from non-Federal sources. 

(vi) The likelihood that the participants in the regional innovation cluster will be able to sustain activities once grant funds under this subsection have been 

expended. 

(5) COST SHARE.—The Secretary may not provide more than 

50 percent of the total cost of any activity funded under this 

subsection. 

(6) USE AND APPLICATION OF RESEARCH AND INFORMATION

PROGRAM.—To the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary 

shall ensure that activities funded under this subsection use 

and apply any relevant research, best practices, and metrics developed under the program established in subsection (c). 

(c) REGIONAL INNOVATION RESEARCH AND INFORMATION PRO- GRAM.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—As part of the program established under 

subsection (a), the Secretary shall establish a regional innovation research and information program to— 

(A) gather, analyze, and disseminate information on best 

practices for regional innovation strategies (including regional innovation clusters), including information relating 

to how innovation, productivity, and economic development 

can be maximized through such strategies; 

(B) provide technical assistance, including through the 

development of technical assistance guides, for the development and implementation of regional innovation strategies 

(including regional innovation clusters); 

(C) support the development of relevant metrics and 

measurement standards to evaluate regional innovation 

strategies (including regional innovation clusters), including the extent to which such strategies stimulate innovation, productivity, and economic development; and 

(D) collect and make available data on regional innovation cluster activity in the United States, including data 

on— 

(i) the size, specialization, and competitiveness of regional innovation clusters; 

(ii) the regional domestic product contribution, total 

jobs and earnings by key occupations, establishment 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
201 

size, nature of specialization, patents, Federal research 

and development spending, and other relevant information for regional innovation clusters; and 

(iii) supply chain product and service flows within 

and between regional innovation clusters. 

(2) RESEARCH GRANTS.—The Secretary may award research 

grants on a competitive basis to support and further the goals 

of the program established under this subsection. 

(3) DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION.—Data and analysis 

compiled by the Secretary under the program established in this 

subsection shall be made available to other Federal agencies, 

State and local governments, and nonprofit and for-profit entities. 

(4) CLUSTER GRANT PROGRAM.—The Secretary shall incorporate data and analysis relating to any regional innovation 

cluster supported by a grant under subsection (b) into the program established under this subsection. 

(d) INTERAGENCY COORDINATION.— (1) IN GENERAL.—To the maximum extent practicable, the 

Secretary shall ensure that the activities carried out under this 

section are coordinated with, and do not duplicate the efforts of, 

other programs at the Department of Commerce or other Federal agencies. 

(2) COLLABORATION.—The Secretary shall explore and pursue 

collaboration with other Federal agencies, including through 

multiagency funding opportunities, on regional innovation 

strategies. 

(e) EVALUATION.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 4 years after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall enter into a contract 

with an independent entity, such as the National Academy of 

Sciences, to conduct an evaluation of the program established 

under subsection (a). 

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—The evaluation shall include— 

(A) whether such program is achieving its goals; 

(B) any recommendations for how such program may be 

improved; and 

(C) a recommendation as to whether such program 

should be continued or terminated. 

(f) REGIONAL INNOVATION CLUSTER DEFINED.—The term ‘‘regional 

innovation cluster’’ means a geographically bounded network of 

similar, synergistic, or complementary entities that— 

(1) are engaged in or with a particular industry sector; 

(2) have active channels for business transactions and communication; 

(3) share specialized infrastructure, labor markets, and services; and 

(4) leverage the region’s unique competitive strengths to stimulate innovation and create jobs. 

(g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to 

be appropriated such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 

2011 through 2015 to carry out this section, including such sums 

as are necessary to carry out the evaluation required under subsection (e). 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
202 

ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE IX—RESEARCH AND 

DEVELOPMENT 

* * * * * * * 

Subtitle G—Science 

* * * * * * * 

øSEC. 977. SYSTEMS BIOLOGY PROGRAM. 

ø(a) PROGRAM.— ø(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary shall establish a research, development, and demonstration program in microbial 

and plant systems biology, protein science, computational biology, and environmental science to support the energy, national 

security, and environmental missions of the Department. 

ø(2) GRANTS.—The program shall support individual researchers and multidisciplinary teams of researchers through 

competitive, merit-reviewed grants. 

ø(3) CONSULTATION.—In carrying out the program, the Secretary shall consult with other Federal agencies that conduct 

genetic and protein research. 

ø(b) GOALS.—The program shall have the goal of developing technologies and methods based on the biological functions of genomes, 

microbes, and plants that— 

ø(1) can facilitate the production of fuels, including hydrogen 

in sustainable production systems that reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions; 

ø(2) convert carbon dioxide to organic carbon; 

ø(3) detoxify soils and water, including at facilities of the Department, contaminated with heavy metals and radiological 

materials; 

ø(4) develop cellulosic and other feedstocks that are less resource and land intensive and that promote sustainable use of 

resources, including soil, water, energy, forests, and land, and 

ensure protection of air, water, and soil quality; and 

ø(5) address other Department missions as identified by the 

Secretary. 

ø(c) PLAN.— ø(1) DEVELOPMENT OF PLAN.—Not later than 1 year after the 

date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall prepare and 

transmit to Congress a research plan describing how the program authorized pursuant to this section will be undertaken to 

accomplish the program goals established in subsection (b). 

ø(2) REVIEW OF PLAN.—The Secretary shall contract with the 

National Academy of Sciences to review the research plan developed under this subsection. The Secretary shall transmit 

the review to Congress not later than 18 months after transmittal of the research plan under paragraph (1), along with the 

Secretary’s response to the recommendations contained in the 

review. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
203 

ø(d) USER FACILITIES AND ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT.—Within the 

funds authorized to be appropriated pursuant to this subtitle, 

amounts shall be available for projects to develop, plan, construct, 

acquire, or operate special equipment, instrumentation, or facilities, including user facilities at National Laboratories, for researchers conducting research, development, demonstration, and commercial application in systems biology and proteomics and associated 

biological disciplines. 

ø(e) PROHIBITION ON BIOMEDICAL AND HUMAN CELL AND HUMAN

SUBJECT RESEARCH.— 

ø(1) NO BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH.—In carrying out the program 

under this section, the Secretary shall not conduct biomedical 

research. 

ø(2) LIMITATIONS.—Nothing in this section shall authorize 

the Secretary to conduct any research or demonstrations— 

ø(A) on human cells or human subjects; or 

ø(B) designed to have direct application with respect to 

human cells or human subjects. 

ø(f) BIOENERGY RESEARCH CENTERS.— 

ø(1) ESTABLISHMENT OF CENTERS.—In carrying out the program under subsection (a), the Secretary shall establish at 

least 7 bioenergy research centers, which may be of varying 

size. 

ø(2) GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.—The Secretary shall establish at least 1 bioenergy research center in each Petroleum Administration for Defense District or Subdistrict of a Petroleum 

Administration for Defense District. 

ø(3) GOALS.—The goals of the centers established under this 

subsection shall be to accelerate basic transformational research and development of biofuels, including biological processes. 

ø(4) SELECTION AND DURATION.— 

ø(A) IN GENERAL.—A center under this subsection shall 

be selected on a competitive basis for a period of 5 years. 

ø(B) REAPPLICATION.—After the end of the period described in subparagraph (A), a grantee may reapply for selection on a competitive basis. 

ø(5) INCLUSION.—A center that is in existence on the date of 

enactment of this subsection— 

ø(A) shall be counted towards the requirement for establishment of at least 7 bioenergy research centers; and 

ø(B) may continue to receive support for a period of 5 

years beginning on the date of establishment of the center.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

XX. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

On April 28, 2010, the Committee on Science and Technology favorably reported H.R. 5116 by a recorded vote of 29–8 and recommended its enactment. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
204 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 224 here HR478P1.001
205 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 225 here HR478P1.002
206 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 226 here HR478P1.003
(207) 

XXII. ADDITIONAL/DISSENTING VIEWS

DISSENTING VIEWS OFFERED BY REPRESENTATIVES: 

RALPH M. HALL, LAMAR SMITH, FRANK D. LUCAS, TODD 

AKIN, MARIO DIAZ-BALART, ADRIAN SMITH AND PETE 

OLSON 

Signed into law by President George W. Bush in August 2007, 

the original America COMPETES Act was developed and passed 

with bipartisan support in response to consensus recommendations 

by the business and academic communities regarding the most important steps the Nation could take to enhance long-term economic 

competitiveness through investments in science and technology. 

We continue to support this organizing principle of the America 

COMPETES Act, as well as its underlying recommendations to 

prioritize and strengthen investments in basic research and development and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 

(STEM) education. These policies, together with a broader economic 

policy that includes lower taxes, adherence to market principles, 

streamlined Federal regulation, and attendance to the budget deficit and national debt, form the policy basis of what is necessary 

for the country to truly remain competitive into the future. 

Accordingly, we strongly support many of the programs and activities called for in H.R. 5116, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010, and commend Chairman Gordon for his leadership on this important topic. However, we remain concerned due to 

fundamental objections with the legislation, including excessive 

spending levels, creation of numerous new unnecessary or duplicative programs, and a policy shift away from the focus on innovation-enabling basic research that formed the cornerstone of the 

original America COMPETES Act and the National Academies’ 

Rising Above the Gathering Storm report from which it evolved. 

Specifically, our overriding objections include the following: 

• Overall authorization levels of nearly $84 billion—$20 billion 

in new funding above the fiscal year 2010 base, and almost $6 billion above the ten-year doubling path for the National Science 

Foundation, Department of Energy Office of Science, and National 

Institute of Standards and Technology. 

• Increased authorization length from three to five years, limiting Committee oversight opportunities and calling for extensive 

out-year funding increases without regard to the current and future fiscal situations. 

• Creation of at least seven new programs, several of which fund 

activities well beyond research and development, many of which 

are duplicative or unnecessary, and all of which will dilute funding 

available for priority basic research. 

During the full committee markup of the legislation, Republicans 

offered 39 amendments, most aimed to address concerns in the 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
208 

aforementioned areas. While some amendments were accepted and 

allowed for improvement to the legislation, those addressing the 

fundamental concerns of reducing the authorization levels, eliminating new programs, and ‘‘righting’’ policy shifts in the bill were 

squarely and repeatedly rejected. For these reasons, we are unable 

to support the bill as reported by the full committee. 

We remain committed to authorizing America COMPETES 

through targeted legislation that takes into full account the current 

fiscal situation and outlook, and will continue to work to improve 

the bill as it moves to the House floor and through the legislative 

process. 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION & STEM EDUCATION

We remain committed to a robust authorization for basic research and education at the National Science Foundation (NSF). 

From a policy perspective, we are pleased to see the focus at NSF 

remain on basic research, however the addition of a new innovative 

prize program could signal an emphasis on applied research which 

is an area correctly not included in NSF’s mission. The elimination 

of a broad range of schools at which teachers are permitted to use 

their Noyce Scholarship experience is disappointing, despite efforts 

to put in place incentives for them to teach in ‘‘high needs’’ schools. 

We support the goal that all American students should reap the 

benefits of these highly skilled teachers. We are not supportive of 

continuing unfunded programs in this legislation like the Partnership for Access to Science Laboratories pilot program. 

As expressed during the original COMPETES authorization in 

2007, we acknowledge a need for a STEM education program at the 

Department of Energy (DOE), however, multiple programs that go 

beyond the purpose of educating and training DOE’s future workforce is unwarranted. 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY

A reorganization of the laboratories at the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST) requires proper oversight to ensure it is beneficial to the needs of the Nation. For that reason we 

echo our desire to shorten the authorization period for the legislation to three years. We believe the elevation of the Director of 

NIST to an Under Secretary position will provide NIST with more 

recognition within the Department of Commerce. 

We maintain that including biosciences as an area of emphasis 

for NIST under this legislation is unnecessary as NIST already has 

the authority and is conducting such research. Driving NIST to create university research centers and a new user facility at this time 

forces the Director to utilize funds in an inefficient and redundant 

manner. 

INNOVATION

While we are steadfast in our support of a robust base of innovation and manufacturing in the United States, we remain concerned 

with the language in the legislation creating programs for manufacturing loan guarantees and regional innovation centers at the 

Department of Commerce. Both of these programs call for funding 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
209 

new activities well beyond research and development. Given budget 

realities, new funding for these programs will effectively dilute 

funding available for priority research activities at the Department 

of Commerce—primarily those at NIST. Further, the eligible activities and entities in both programs are vaguely defined, and thus 

particularly vulnerable to potentially inappropriate or duplicative 

activities. While attempts by Republicans to strike these programs 

were rejected, we are pleased that some efforts to incorporate additional taxpayer protections were accepted, such as the adoption of 

an amendment requiring that the loan guarantee eligibility criteria 

include proof that a market exists for the product for which the 

loan guarantee is being requested, and an amendment to ensure 

the Department of Commerce develop the program in accordance 

with existing Office of Management and Budget guidelines. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

In 2007, we expressed concern over the establishment of the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA–E), arguing that the creation of such an agency modeled on the Department of Defense 

DARPA program would not translate effectively to the energy sector and had the potential to create an unnecessary bureaucracy at 

the Department of Energy. We recognize the benefit that ‘‘creative, 

out of the box, transformational research’’ may provide to the country; however, we find language in the current legislation repealing 

certain statutory protections limiting the breadth and scope of the 

APRA–E organization troubling. The elimination of a ceiling on the 

number of employees the Director of ARPA–E may hire, coupled 

with the desire to fashion an independent staff of legal counsel, 

contracting specialists, and program directors in our interpretation 

moves ARPA–E in the direction of a new Department and not a 

nimble, targeted, responsive program. 

Further, we are concerned that the new ‘‘Energy Innovation 

Hubs’’ program created by the legislation is unnecessary and will 

be significantly redundant with existing activities throughout the 

Department. In the case of the Office of Science, this will result in 

a disconcerting policy shift away from the longstanding focus of the 

Office on priority basic research in the energy sciences and toward 

more applied research and technology development. 

RALPH M. HALL. 

LAMAR SMITH. 

FRANK D. LUCAS. 

W. TODD AKIN. 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART. 

PETE OLSON. 

ADRIAN SMITH. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
(210) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVES INGLIS, 

MCCAUL, BARTLETT, EHLERS, BIGGERT, AND BILBRAY 

We support the COMPETES Reauthorization Act as a continued 

commitment to long-term economic competitiveness and strong 

science and technology programs in U.S. government, academia, 

and industry, and we cheer Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall for their leadership in this effort. The National Academies’ 

Rising Above the Gathering Storm report provided several recommendations about increasing and targeting investments in research and development and education that formed the core of 

COMPETES in 2007. As we reauthorize this landmark legislation, 

it is important to again evaluate and prioritize our investments. 

BASIC RESEARCH

Several provisions associated with the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Office of Science at the Department of Energy 

(DOE) indicate a substantial shift away from foundational, longterm research. In a commendable push to bring more research and 

development breakthroughs to the consumer market more quickly, 

we feel that this legislation may draw resources and attention 

away from the basic research work that will sustain American competitiveness over the long term. The Committee should try to more 

clearly balance an obvious short term desire for a burst of technological innovation with a reliable supply of emerging scientific 

breakthroughs that fuel our economic engine. We are troubled that 

the current Administration may be losing sight of the necessity to 

continue to fuel the pipeline of innovation with basic research. 

NEW PROGRAMS

In the 2010 COMPETES Reauthorization, the majority has created a number of new programs intended to accelerate and bring 

to market technological progress. The Energy Innovation Hubs at 

the DOE may certainly improve collaboration in key areas of inquiry, and may lay the groundwork for U.S. leadership in new energy technologies. Still, as currently conceived, the Hubs would replicate some of the work already ongoing at the Department and result in duplicative efforts. This reauthorization also adds a bioscience research program at the National Institutes of Standards 

and Technology (NIST). It seems that this language is redundant 

with ongoing work at NIST and will drive redundant and inefficient investments in this program and accompanying university research centers. We cannot support the creation of new programs 

that will build redundancy into the missions of these critical agencies and cause excessive inefficiency in research investments. Adding duplication to federal efforts is counter to the intention of the 

COMPETES reauthorization. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
211 

INNOVATION TITLE

The 2010 COMPETES Reauthorization includes a new title 

which purports to accelerate innovation. We are troubled that this 

title strays from the original recommendations of the Rising Above 

the Gathering Storm report to improve our competitiveness. While 

a federal loan guarantee program and regional innovation program 

may not be bad ideas, they are not affiliated with the report’s recommendations and these new programs could have used a more 

thorough vetting process before our Committee. 

CLIMATE RESEARCH PROVISIONS

We value and depend on accurate assessments of the behavior of 

and changes to our climate, and we acknowledge DOE’s work in 

this area. However, we question the necessity or utility of including 

climate research provisions at the DOE Office of Science Biological 

and Environmental Research Program in this reauthorization. Inclusion of climate research programs confuses the intent of this bill 

and improperly emphasizes the importance of climate science in 

our roadmap to a powerfully competitive economy. 

AUTHORIZATION LEVELS

The Rising Above the Gathering Storm report contained specific 

recommendations to increase and target funding for some of our 

most important research programs. Increasing the resources available to these programs, and to our national labs, academic institutions, and research partnerships in pursuit of foundational, transformative breakthroughs is an important part of our plan for economic competitiveness. We hope that while we grapple with a 

struggling economy, we balance our enthusiasm for these programs 

with sensible fiscal restraint. In this fiscal environment, we hope 

these authorization levels convey that importance we place on scientific and technical progress for the success of the U.S. on an 

international stage. 

BOB INGLIS. 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY. 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL. 

JUDY BIGGERT. 

VERNON J. EHLERS. 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
(212) 

DISSENTING VIEWS OFFERED BY REPRESENTATIVE 

ROHRABACHER 

The theoretical purpose of the America COMPETES Act is to enhance long-term economic competitiveness through investments in 

science and technology. I support this laudable goal, as I have for 

more than 21 years as a member of the Committee on Science and 

Technology, including 10 years as a Subcommittee Chairman. But 

I cannot support this legislation which, simply put, authorizes too 

much funding in too many wrong-headed ways. 

While I’m certain this bill was drafted with the best intentions 

and motiviations, I agree with many of the Dissenting Views as 

stated by Ranking Member Hall and others, specifically that: 

. . . [national investments] in basic reseach and development 

and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) 

education . . . together with a broader economic policy that includes lower taxes, adherence to market principles, streamlined Federal regulation, and attendance to the budget deficit 

and national debt, form the policy basis of what is necessary 

for the country to truly remain competitive into the future. 

But this point must be stated clearly and forcefully: we cannot 

enchance our long-term competitiveness by mortgaging the future 

of our children and grandchildren. 

That is precisely what this legislation does by authorizing $84 

billion, a 31% increase above the FY 2010 baseline. That increase 

must add to our deficit—money we are borrowing from China and 

other foreign nations. There is no sense of prioritization, and no attempt at increasing efficiencies or at restructuring programs that 

would be expected in a reauthorization bill of this size and complexity. This legislation just adds new spending on top of old. 

At the same time, the Majority refused to accept common-sense 

amendments to increase revenue through ownership rights and 

technology developed with government funds and to make certain 

that these funds don’t go overseas to foreign competitors. If we finance foreign researchers who return home with their new-found 

results, then we should rename this the America DEPLETES Act. 

Creating new federal programs should always be done with caution and oversight. Establishing them in a time of economic downturn by increasing deficit spending will reduce productivity and 

economic activity. This legislation creates many new programs 

which are unnecessary and wasteful, increasing deficits while reducing the advancement opportunities for our nation. 

Spending more, borrowing more, taxing more, and running up 

the deficit at a record pace over the past year have not helped grow 

the economy or reverse the economic outlook for America. I had 

hoped that the Majority would change course and begin to work in 

a responsible way to promote job creation and economic growth in 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
213 

both the near-term and long-term. This legislation shows how 

much that hope was misplaced. 

DANA ROHRABACHER. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
(214) 

DISSENTING VIEWS OFFERED BY REPRESENTATIVE PAUL 

BROUN 

The Reauthorization calls for excessive spending levels, the creation of numerous new unnecessary or duplicative programs, and 

a policy shift away from the focus on innovation-enabling basic research that formed the cornerstone of the original America COMPETES Act of 2007 and the National Academies’ Rising Above the 

Gathering Storm report from which it evolved. 

Specifically, I have three main concerns. First, the overall authorization levels approach $84 billion, which represents $20 billion 

in new funding above the fiscal year 2010 base, and almost $6 billion above the ten-year doubling path for the National Science 

Foundation, Department of Energy Office of Science, and National 

Institute of Standards and Technology. Secondly, increasing the out 

year funding and the authorization length from three to five years 

limits the Committee’s oversight opportunities without regard to 

the current and future fiscal situations. Lastly, the creation of at 

least seven new programs, which fund activities well beyond research and development and are duplicative, will dilute funding 

available for priority basic research. 

During the full committee markup of the legislation, my Republican colleagues and I offered 39 amendments, mostly addressing 

concerns in the aforementioned areas. While some amendments 

were accepted and allowed for improvement to the legislation, 

those addressing the fundamental concerns of reducing the authorization levels, eliminating new programs, and ‘‘righting’’ policy 

shifts in the bill were repeatedly rejected. For those reasons, I am 

unable to support the bill as reported by the full committee. 

PAUL C. BROUN. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
215 

XXIII. PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARKUP BY 

THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT ON COMMITTEE PRINT, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OFFICE OF 

SCIENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2010; 

ARPA–E REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2010; 

AND ENERGY INNOVATION HUBS AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2010 

THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 2010 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brian Baird 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Chairman BAIRD. Good morning. This hearing will come to order 

pursuant to notice. The Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 

meets to consider the following measure, the Committee Print for 

the Department of Energy. I recognize myself for an opening statement. 

I want to welcome everyone to today’s Energy and Environment 

Subcommittee markup. It is the first of three Subcommittee markups, leading to Full Committee consideration of the reauthorization 

of the America COMPETES Act. Today we have before us a Committee Print comprised of three titles. The intention is for these 

three titles to make up the bulk of the Department of Energy’s research program in America COMPETES. 

Title I is a comprehensive authorization of the Department’s Office of Science. This is language from H.R. 4905, a bill I introduced 

with my colleague from Illinois and long-time champion of the Office of Science and the National Laboratories, Ms. Biggert, and I 

thank her for her input and collaboration on this. 

The Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States with a current 

budget of roughly $5 billion. It is one of three agencies that the 

America COMPETES Act set on a doubling path following on the 

recommendation of the National Academy’s report, Rising Above 

the Gathering Storm. It has a diverse portfolio of advanced R&D 

facilities, including everything from supercomputers to x-ray light 

sources. Last year these facilities were used by more than 22,000 

researchers from universities, national laboratories, private industry, and other federal science agencies, enabling our Nation’s best 

and brightest to examine new materials for a wide range of industrial energy research applications. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
216 

If adopted, this legislation will provide the first comprehensive 

authorization of the Office of Science and will keep it on the funding path set forth in the first COMPETES Act. 

Title II of the print is the reauthorization of the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy, or ARPA–E, which mirrors the 

language from H.R. 4906, introduced by the Committee Chairman, 

Mr. Gordon. I, again, commend him for his leadership in what I 

personally believe will be one of the landmark achievements of this 

committee for many years to come. 

In addition to extending the authorizations, Mr. Gordon makes 

a handful of important additions to the underlying statute to further ensure it remains the independent and agile program it was 

intended to be. ARPA–E received its first appropriation last year, 

and thanks to the efforts of Dr. Majumdar and his all-star staff the 

program hit the ground running and funded over 37 energy research projects. We expect to see continuing great things from this 

program and having participated in their summit just a couple of 

weeks ago, it is a strikingly positive development on this front. 

Title III follows H.R. 4907, introduced by Mr. Carnahan, Ms. Giffords, and Mr. Tonko, in authorizing the new Energy Innovation 

Hubs as proposed by Energy Secretary Chu in 2009. Modeled largely after Bell Labs and the Bioenergy Research Centers, the Hubs 

are intended to foster a highly-collaborative working environment 

that brings together many fields of expertise to overcome scientific 

barriers to our Nation’s most critical energy challenges. 

Spanning the full gamut from the most basic research all the 

way to commercial applications, these three programs represent 

the forefront of our Nation’s effort to lead the world in the development and production of technologies for a clean energy economy. 

I also want to emphasize that the language in this legislation is 

the result of multiple hearings on all of the key fronts, and we 

have, if anyone is interested, a listing of all the many hearings we 

have held in anticipation of this legislation and a direct point-bypoint analysis of where the outcome and input from those hearings 

is reflected in the bill. 

I understand that many colleagues, several colleagues have a 

number of amendments, and I look forward to a healthy discussion, 

but also I hope we will move with some alacrity as we move forward with this legislation. 

With that I turn it over to my colleague and friend from South 

Carolina, Mr. Inglis, for his opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Baird follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BRIAN BAIRD

Good Morning. I Want to welcome everyone to today’s Energy & Environment 

Subcommittee Markup. This is the first of three Subcommittee markups leading to 

the Full Committee’s consideration of the reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act. 

Today we have before us a Committee Print comprised of three titles. The intention is for these three titles to make up the bulk of the Department of Energy’s research programs in COMPETES. 

Title I is a comprehensive reauthorization of the Department’s Office of Science. 

This is the language from H.R. 4905, a bill that I introduced with my colleague from 

Illinois and a long-time champion of the Office of Science and the National Laboratories, Ms. Judy Biggert. 

The Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States, with a current budget of roughly $5 billion. It 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
217 

is one of three agencies that the America COMPETES Act set on a doubling path 

following on the recommendations of the National Academies report, ‘‘Rising Above 

the Gathering Storm.’’ 

It has a diverse portfolio of advanced R&D facilities, including everything from 

supercomputers to x-ray light sources, Last year, these facilities were used by more 

than 22,000 researchers from universities, national laboratories, private industry, 

and other Federal science agencies—enabling our nation’s best and brightest to examine new materials for a wide range of industrial and energy research applications. 

This title authorizes some of the most significant research activities of the Office 

of Science. If adopted, it will provide the first comprehensive authorization of the 

Office of Science, and will keep it on the funding path set forth in the first COMPETES Act. 

Title II of the Print is a reauthorization of the Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy, or ARPA–E, which mirrors the language from H.R. 4906 introduced by 

Chairman Gordon. In addition to extending the authorizations, Mr. Gordon makes 

a handful of important additions to the underlying statute to further ensure it remains the independent and agile program it was intended to be. 

ARPA–E received its first appropriation last year and, thanks to the efforts of Dr. 

Majumdar and his all star staff, the program hit the ground running and funded 

over 37 energy research projects. We expect to see great things from this program. 

Title III follows H.R. 4907, introduced by Mr. Carnahan, Ms. Giffords, and Mr. 

Tonko, in authorizing the new Energy Innovation Hubs as proposed by Department 

of Energy Secretary Chu in 2009. Modeled largely after Bell Laboratories and the 

Bioenergy Research Centers, the Hubs are intended to foster a highly collaborative 

working environment that brings together many fields of expertise to overcome scientific barriers to our nation’s most critical energy challenges. 

Spanning the full gambit from the most basic research all the way to commercial 

applications, these three programs represent the forefront of our nation’s effort to 

lead the world in the development and production of technologies for a clean energy 

economy. 

I understand my colleagues have a number of amendments, and I look forward 

to a healthy discussion as we move forward with this legislation. 

With that I will turn it over to my colleague from South Carolina, Mr. Inglis, for 

his opening statement. 

Mr. INGLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding 

this markup as we get ready to reauthorize the America COMPETES Act. Today we will look at three components of that effort 

at the Department of Energy, the Office of Science, ARPA–E, and 

the new Energy Innovation Hubs Initiative. 

The Office of Science at DOE has a long history of transformative 

foundational research work that underpins our understanding of 

nature and opens the door to major advancements in energy technologies and national security. In support of this mission this committee laid out a doubling track for the Office of Science in the 

2007, Authorization of America COMPETES. As we again address 

this critical office, I hope to raise a few points of concern. 

First, it seems we are encouraging the Office of Science to move 

away from its foundational research focus and towards the development of marketable technologies. I am concerned that an emphasis 

on technology development will overrun and diminish the critical 

basic discovery science mission. 

Second, this Committee Print places considerable emphasis on 

climate observations and modeling. While this work will support 

strong energy policy decisions, it has little bearing on the technological competitiveness of the United States and seems misplaced 

in this COMPETES legislation. 

Next, we will turn to ARPA–E. I am a big believer in this new 

program and the flexible, aggressive approach it takes to developing market-ready, transformative technologies. The early success 

of ARPA–E grant solicitations was very encouraging, and I can apVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00223 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
218 

preciate the enthusiasm behind the 10-year authorization for this 

program as included in the language. 

At the same time I think it is important that we give the program more time to show its successes and limitation and hesitate 

to offer it such a lengthy authorization. 

Finally, this language includes Energy Innovation Hubs. This is 

a new initiative recommended by Secretary Chu and is intended to 

create breakthroughs in particularly troublesome areas of energy 

technology. 

I hope to ask a few clarifying questions about this section during 

the hearing. Before we begin, I want to raise my concern that this 

program may duplicate ongoing work at DOE. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward—as I look at the authorization 

bills, authorization levels in this bill, I can’t help but think that we 

are letting our enthusiasm for these programs get the better of us. 

While robust funding for critical work at the Department of Energy 

is necessary and a long-term commitment of this subcommittee, 

now is certainly the time to exercise fiscal restraint and fiscal responsibility. 

Again, I want to thank you for holding this markup. I look forward to working with you on legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman BAIRD. I thank the gentleman. Does anyone else wish 

to be recognized? 

The Chairman, Mr. Gordon, is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say first that 

Mr. Inglis raises some very valid questions, and I think we will 

have a good discussion on that. I won’t take time to do that now. 

What I would like to do is thank the Members of this committee 

and the staff that have worked so hard in a bipartisan way with 

so many hearings. This is a very, very important piece of legislation on its own and will help America in terms of our energy independence, in terms of our competitiveness, and I think in what can 

be a real export market for us. 

But it is also a major portion of the America COMPETES Act, 

which we will be dealing with later. Let me—and also I want to 

acknowledge, I don’t know if mistake is the right term, we will call 

it whatever, the—we have a responsibility to get the questions 

from the Members to the panelists for responses, those questions 

that could not be raised during the hearing. It was an error on our 

part in not forwarding those. It is not—all you got to do is just 

push the button and send them on over. So they are out. They have 

not had time to get back, but they will be back well before we do 

the final markup, and I want to acknowledge to those folks that 

had questions that, again, that mistake was made, we are in the 

process of correcting it, and they will have plenty of time to review 

it before the full hearing. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BAIRD. I thank the Chair. Anyone else wish to be recognized? 

Chairman BAIRD. If not, then I ask unanimous consent that the 

print is considered as read and open to amendment at any point. 

Chairman BAIRD. Let the Members proceed with the amendments in the order of the roster. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
219 

Without objection, so ordered. 

The first amendment on the roster is a manager’s amendment offered by the Chair. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 002, amendment to the Committee Print offered by Mr. Baird of Washington. 

Chairman BAIRD. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the 

reading. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize myself for five minutes to explain the amendment. 

The manager’s amendment makes a series of changes throughout 

Title I of the Committee Print to clarify the intent of the legislation 

and to incorporate recent recommendations from stakeholders. 

In addition, this amendment incorporates some good suggestions 

put forward by the Minority, and we thank everyone for those contributions. 

Several provisions of the amendment provide a clear explanation 

of research items for the office. This includes research activities in 

the Biological and Environmental Research programs, as well as 

for basic energy sciences, advanced scientific computing, and fusion 

energy research. 

Additionally, we made several technical corrections. 

I ask my colleagues to support the amendment. Is there further 

discussion on the amendment? 

The Chair recognizes Mr. Inglis. 

Mr. INGLIS. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if this might be a good time 

for me to ask questions of counsel on Office of Science, Title I. Is 

that all right to dispense with that at this point? 

To get some questions about Title I, about the Office of Science. 

So in existing law the Systems Biology Program permits research 

to the production of fuels including hydrogen. The language included in the draft does not include any mention of hydrogen. The 

language has been rewritten to this, ‘‘increased cost effective, sustainable production of biomass-based liquid transportation fuels, 

bioenergy, and bio-based products that minimize greenhouse gas 

emissions.’’ 

Is it the intent of this draft that hydrogen fuels no longer be included and be considered part of the program? Is that the intent 

of the drafting of this? 

COUNSEL. No, that is not the intent. 

Mr. INGLIS. So any reason that the specific mention of hydrogen 

is taken out, or is it—do you feel that it is effectively covered in 

the language that is in there? 

COUNSEL. We do feel that it is effectively covered. 

Mr. INGLIS. So let us think about that. Increased—cost effective, 

sustainable production, biomass-based liquid transportation fuels. I 

am not sure hydrogen fits in there. Right? That is one source of hydrogen. That is one way to get it. Another would be, for example, 

reforming natural gas, but maybe you are trying to exclude that, 

because reform natural gas doesn’t fit there. Right? 

COUNSEL. The Biological Systems Science Program in this bill is 

specifically focused on the biological side, so the reforming through 

natural gas would probably be in a different program. 

Mr. INGLIS. So I wonder if it is—what I am concerned about is 

we limit the options out there in hydrogen research, and we don’t 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
220 

want to do that, or I certainly don’t want to do that. So there are 

opportunities, all kinds of ways to create the hydrogen sources. It 

is just—we want to—I think we seem to be limiting it here. Is that 

right? 

COUNSEL. I am sorry. Could you repeat the question? 

Mr. INGLIS. Well, I am sort of rambling. It is—I guess— 

Chairman BAIRD. Would the gentleman yield for a second? 

Mr. INGLIS. Yeah. 

Chairman BAIRD. I am actually sympathetic to this line of questioning, and I am wondering if there may not be time to—I personally think we ought to make sure that hydrogen has a strong role 

broadly through the bill, and if there are biological—if I recall, and 

my memory may not be correct, there are other elements of the bill 

that do address hydrogen, but if the gentleman is of the belief that 

we should—we don’t want to have a sin of omission by not including hydrogen, I think I would certainly—we don’t have an amendment before us today, but before the bill moves to Full Committee 

I would certainly urge us to work with the gentleman and see what 

we could do on that. At least include it as an option, not necessarily a mandate but an option for research. 

Would that be satisfactory? Does the staff have—I yield back 

but— 

COUNSEL. We have no issues with that. I would also point out 

that there is research related to fuel cells within the Basic Energy 

Sciences Program and that includes hydrogen. 

Mr. INGLIS. Okay. So I guess your point to me is that—my question here relates to the Systems Biology Program, and you are saying that this is—that is why it is so geared toward bio kind of 

sources rather than all the other sources of hydrogen. 

Okay, but I appreciate the Chairman’s interest in making sure 

that we don’t diminish the importance of pursuing hydrogen. 

And then the second question I have for you, in existing law biomedical research, including research on human cells or human subjects, is prohibited. The draft language omits a similar provision. 

Is this because the language aims to expand the scope of the program to biomedical research, or is there some other reason for this 

omission? 

COUNSEL. No, it does not plan on expanding the scope of the Bio 

Systems Science Program. It was omitted because we were trying 

to clean up the language, and we thought that that provision 

wasn’t necessary at this time. 

Mr. INGLIS. So what—how are we going to make sure to have 

protection against research on human cells or human subjects? I 

mean, wouldn’t it be better to make that explicit than to be silent? 

COUNSEL. The counsel doesn’t have an objection to that at all. 

Mr. INGLIS. To making it explicit that we are not doing human 

subjects. 

COUNSEL. That is correct. 

Mr. INGLIS. Human cells. 

Chairman BAIRD. Would the gentleman yield? 

I just—maybe that is something we should discuss. I am not— 

I want to make sure that we are not—let me give examples. I don’t 

think anybody is talking about using human cells to generate energy resources, but I wouldn’t want to preclude if there were—if 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
221 

this system were to have some analysis of the affects of something 

on a human system, I don’t want to inadvertently block that, you 

know. If somebody were to say, for example, how does some products we are producing affect human beings? That we don’t inadvertently say—now, that is different than sort of biological research 

on the human body, but I just want to run that by counsel if—what 

is your take on that? 

COUNSEL. I could point out, the origin of biological research within the Office of Science is actually the effects of radiation on people. 

Chairman BAIRD. I am aware of that, and our hearing raised 

that very issue, which is why I am reticent to be as amenable to 

this particular amendment. 

Mr. INGLIS. I am with you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with you that 

you don’t want to stop that kind of research you were just talking 

about because it would be—that would be problematic. 

I think the challenge that we are noticing is in current law we 

have this explicit prohibition, but on the reauthorization we are removing that. It seems to me that raises the possibility that this is 

intentional or that someone can argue that. 

COUNSEL. It is not intentional, and we did not imply that it 

should be something that is continued. In fact, in the budget the 

Department of Energy has phased out the one specific program 

that does do medical kinds of applications. 

Mr. INGLIS. So as we go forward, maybe with the Chairman’s— 

I agree with the Chairman. We don’t want to limit what he—the 

research he was talking about, but I think it is important that we 

not set up any presumption by the removal of language from the 

existing bill, and it seems wise to me to maintain that language 

rather than omit it. 

So perhaps we can work on that as we go forward, and I thank 

you for letting me exceed my time here. 

Chairman BAIRD. Is there further discussion? 

If no, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. 

Those opposed, say no. The ayes have it, and the amendment in 

agreed to. 

The second amendment on the roster is an amendment offered 

by the gentleman from Michigan, Dr. Ehlers. Dr. Ehlers, are you 

ready to proceed with your amendment? 

Mr. EHLERS. Yes. I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman BAIRD. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 034, amendment to the Committee Print offered by Mr. Ehlers of Michigan. 

Chairman BAIRD. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the 

reading. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment would 

strike the first portion of Section 103, the Office of Science activities, and insert a clear description of the Office of Science’s mission 

and duties as described by the Office itself. 

My amendment would make clear that the activities of the Office 

of Science should focus on basic research as they have ever since 

the Department of Energy was formed. In fact, even before the DeVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00227 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
222 

partment of Energy was formed, and it was operated by the Atomic 

Energy Commission. It was always understood their primary focus 

would be basic research. 

I understand that the current language in the bill is included in 

Energy Policy Act of 2005, however, I do not believe that the inclusion of demonstration and commercial application activities actually reflects what the DOE’s Office of Science does. In fact, DOE 

reports to NSF that they conduct entirely basic research each year, 

and the Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States. 

So I am basically urging that we maintain that language which 

has traditionally been in there, that the Office of Science’s mission 

and duties will be primarily in the area of basic research. 

Chairman BAIRD. The gentleman yield back the time? 

Mr. EHLERS. Yes. 

Chairman BAIRD. I will recognize myself for five minutes in response. 

As always the gentleman from Michigan offers some very 

thoughtful and constructive suggestions. My only hesitation would 

be that we had a number of witnesses testify at hearings about the 

importance of finding ways to move from the basic research into actual applied and production, and a number of witnesses at least 

testified that while we don’t want to lose our emphasis on basic research, at least being more cognizant and putting some more attention on the production side is important. We have seen multiple examples where U.S. driven basic research doesn’t yield production 

here but actually production overseas. So we fund innovation and 

the jobs go somewhere else. 

And so I want to be cognizant of that, and so I am inclined to 

accept the gentleman’s amendment but with the caveat that since 

we have only had relatively little time to look at that, we want to 

reserve the right to discuss with the gentleman, possibly modify 

that before final—before the vote goes to final. 

Mr. EHLERS. Will the gentleman yield? 

Chairman BAIRD. Yes, I would be happy to yield. 

Mr. EHLERS. Just in response to that, first of all, I emphasize 

that the focus should be on basic research. It would not preclude 

doing other things. 

Secondly, I think, you know, and we discussed this briefly before 

the meeting, and I would have to go back, but my memory is that 

the Department of Energy has in the past had cooperative agreements that they have developed with entrepreneurs, with corporations and so forth, that when there is a practical application, then 

they develop a relationship between the Department and the corporation to work together on the proper application of the ideas 

that the basic research has developed and make them marketable 

in various ways. 

So I do not object to the Department cooperating that way. I am 

just worried about changing the focus as has been changed in the 

bill. 

Chairman BAIRD. The gentleman’s point— 

Mr. EHLERS. I am sure we could work together on developing 

good language that would be acceptable to everyone. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
223 

Chairman BAIRD. I am certain we can. The gentleman’s point is 

well taken. 

Ms. Biggert, I am happy to yield to you. 

Ms. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I probably have 

a very similar question, and I just put it into terms where it actually happens, and that would be many of our labs do work with industry and in testing products that the industry wants to, you 

know, go forward with, and I would hate to see that that wouldn’t 

be able to happen. And we also have what we call the Valley of 

Death, which is something where, you have got the product, you 

have got the demonstration, but a company is not able to push it 

out into the community, and I think at some point we should really 

have more discussion on that. I know in some of the hearings it has 

been discussed, but how are we to—is there any way that we can 

help really to move those forward, if we want to keep the innovation and the creativity going. So many times we lose so many products that that doesn’t happen that way. 

So I want to make sure that we don’t lose that opportunity. 

Chairman BAIRD. I share the gentlelady’s concern. 

I am happy to yield to Mr. Garamendi. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I think it is very, very important that we maintain this transitional role for the Department. The basic science 

has been conducted in an extraordinary way and with great success 

in all of these various areas. It is that next step from the basic 

science to the application of it that is very, very important. 

I want to give a specific example. Part of this has to do with fusion power, either the NIF facility or one of the others. The next 

step at the NIF, assuming you get ignition and all the work that 

NIF needs to do, it could lead to fusion power. The—that moves 

from basic science to commercialization, and it is that transition, 

and that is just one of numerous examples that we find. 

So I think it is really important that the Department have the 

opportunity and frankly the explicit obligation to take that next 

step. Now, the application or the money to do it is another matter, 

but without the authorization, the money won’t follow and will not 

be available. 

And so I really think the language as written is appropriate. 

Chairman BAIRD. Is there further discussion? 

Mr. Luja ́n is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Ehlers, I very much appreciate the thought behind the flexibility as mentioned to Chairman Baird. My concerns are along the 

same line as Mr. Garamendi, and even yesterday we had a hearing 

with a panel that included investors, those that are involved with 

some of the universities, research institutions, and representatives 

from the Administration, that talked about the importance of making sure that when we have these scientific discoveries that we are 

able to push them a little bit. And it seems that that is one of the 

areas of frustration with some of the small businesses that I have 

engaged with as well in many of these areas. 

And the CRADA is the Cooperative Research and Development 

Agreements. What we saw in the 1990s is that there was utilization of these CRADAs, but it decreased as we approached 2000 and 

2001 because of some of those constraints, and I could not agree 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
224 

more that that is a vehicle that we need to go back to look at to 

see how we can increase that capacity. 

But I am very hesitant to take away the encouragement or the 

incentive to push it forward, and I would be happy to yield to Mr. 

Ehlers for any comments. 

Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Let us remember what the purpose of the amendment is. We are 

talking here just about the Office of Science, and that has traditionally been focused on basic research, and I am just trying to 

make sure we don’t lose that. That does not preclude the rest of 

the Department, which, of course, is much larger than the Office 

of Science from doing the sorts of the things that you have described and which they have traditionally done. 

I do think, however, and Chairman Baird, I think, would agree 

with this, that we should find out what they did in the past in 

terms of working with industry, because I know they have developed working relationships. They had, used to have a standard contractual procedure. I don’t know if it is still there or not. 

So it doesn’t preclude their continuing to do what they have 

done. It is just simply saying the focus of the Office of Science is 

basic research. Out of that springs all the other things that they 

can apply in various areas. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My concern is that the 

Department of Energy does not engage in the activities necessary 

to push the technology out, and we can have these grand ideas and 

these phenomenal technological advances where there are spin-offs 

off of ideas that we can’t even imagine what the results can yield, 

but we can’t push them out. And that is my concern with DOE; it 

seems that they sit on the shelf instead of helping advance commercialization or manufacturing here in the United States for job 

creation, which is a focus of mine. And coming from a district that 

has a few of the national laboratories in it and understanding how 

we need—as I stated earlier, to push this forward as opposed to 

pull back. 

So I appreciate learning more from you, Mr. Chairman, and from 

Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Yeah, and this does not preclude that from continuing to happen. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time. 

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you, Mr. Luja ́n. 

Any on the Minority side wish to be recognized? 

Mr. Gordon wanted to be. 

Mr. Inglis, did you want to be recognized? 

Mr. INGLIS. Well, I just—yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you. Just to 

make the point that the Office of Science here we are talking about 

in this bill is $35.77 billion, ARPA–E is 3.4 billion, and then the 

Hubs are .85 billion, 850 million, I guess. 

And it is—I think Dr. Ehlers makes a good point that we had 

this tension between wanting to do basic research, which is so crucial to get breakthroughs, and I think that everybody on this committee probably believes that that is an important role of our government in figuring out how to fund this basic research because nobody else is going to do it. It is not necessarily going to reach commercial application, and therefore, if you are trying to justify your 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
225 

shareholders’ investment in it, you are just not going to be able to 

do it. So that is why we are so big on basic research. 

But we are also, as the gentleman was just saying, we are into 

getting advances in the economy, and so there is this tension between wanting to do basic research but yet wanting to commercialize it. I think Dr. Ehlers is just making the very good point, 

though, that in the—when we are talking about the Office of 

Science, we have historically been talking about basic research, we 

want to keep them focused on that, because there is no telling what 

will come out of it. 

Sort of like the Neutrino experiments that we saw at the South 

Pole. We have really no idea what is going to come out of that. 

There is no commercial application in sight, but it may help us understand energy that we don’t understand at this point. And so we 

wouldn’t want to siphon off money into immediate quarterly profit 

kind of motivation and pass out Neutrino experimentation at the 

South Pole as an example. I am not sure that is covered by this— 

actually funding comes out of this, but that is the kind of thing 

that we are—I think Dr. Ehlers is focusing on. 

Am I saying that right, Dr. Ehlers? 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you for yielding. I just want to say, yes, that 

is correct. The whole intent here is to continue to operate the Office 

of Science the way it has been operating, which is basic research. 

There are other arms of working with industry, developing new 

ideas, more applied research is done elsewhere in DOE and not in, 

primarily in the Office of Science. 

So I am—just want to make sure that we are not by default 

changing the focus of the Office of Science by this bill, but we are 

maintaining the focus of the Office of Science in basic research, and 

we will continue all the other activities as they have been doing 

and will continue to do. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Would the gentleman yield, Mr. Inglis? 

Mr. INGLIS. I am sorry. I would be happy to yield. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Thank you. Although I am reluctant to support this 

amendment, if I could get some assurance that we could work on 

some language, either in this legislation or down the road, that we 

could create a mechanism understanding that there has been a decrease in commercialization activity and the complexities associated with licensing going forward to move this technology out of 

DOE, wherever that basic science may be, I think I would be more 

inclined with supporting this amendment, seeing how we could 

work on that vehicle to get this moving. 

Mr. INGLIS. Happy to yield to Dr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. I am fine. 

Mr. GORDON. Would the gentleman yield? If the gentleman would 

yield. Listening to this discussion I think that we are remarkably 

in sync. We are all singing the same song, maybe just a little bit, 

you know, different. Clearly, we all recognize as Dr. Ehlers’ point 

out, that the primary responsibility in the Office of Science, and I 

think across the Department of Energy, is basic research, but as 

Ms. Biggert points out, we need to keep an eye to that—getting 

through the Valley of Death with technology transfer. And as Mr. 

Baird points out, we certainly don’t want to be, you know, developing some type of, again, new research that then is taken offshore. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
226 

So I think we are all in sync. I think that Dr. Ehlers’ amendment 

is in that spirit. I would suggest that we accept it and that I am 

sure he would be—if we have to word it a little bit, you know, between now and Full Committee, you know, that is fine, but I think 

he is representative of what we all feel is correct. 

Mr. INGLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman BAIRD. Further discussion? 

The one final thing I would say is I intend to support it, but I 

really do want to underscore that I think there is a strong sense 

that has been expressed by the Committee that we do want to— 

while we maintain the focus on basic research, we do want also— 

personally those researchers who benefit from this money, and $5 

billion is a serious chunk of change, it dwarfs ARPA–E, for example, and we face major, multiple challenges on our energy front. I 

personally want to put a marker down in this bill strongly and 

throughout the reauthorization of COMPETES that we value and 

respect the basic research, but we have some real-world problems 

we got to address, and we want those basic researchers to address 

those real-world problems. Among those real-world problems is employing the American people and solving our energy needs. 

And so I want to make sure that we keep that focus on basic research but with a peripheral vision at the very least of how—what 

it means. 

Mr. EHLERS. Yeah. No disagreement. 

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, happy to yield. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I understand where Dr. Ehlers is going, but the 

specific language of his amendment uses the word basic, and there 

is no other word to give direction to the Department that its task 

is more than basic research, and so if we accept his amendment, 

we ought to modify it so that the Chairman’s point about the application of that basic research is somehow incorporated in this. 

Otherwise the current Director of this Department is instructed 

very clearly. It is basic, and there is nothing more in the language. 

So I think we need to broaden if we are going to go down with 

route with the acceptance of the amendment. 

Mr. EHLERS. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Certainly. 

Mr. EHLERS. First, let me point out that the word used is focus. 

It doesn’t say that is all they can do. That is their primary focus 

as it has been. 

Furthermore, we chose that language very carefully because that 

is precisely what is in the President’s budget bill that they sent 

and described the function of the Office of Science and referred specifically to the focus on basic research. 

So we are basically continuing with what has always been there 

and what the President has talked about in his budget. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I see my task of modifying what exists today. 

I didn’t come here to stay where we were yesterday but rather to 

move to tomorrow, and we, in my view we have to take this basic 

science and move it into the commercial sector, and there are numerous ways to do that, and focus is still even more precise, you 

shall focus on this. 

I think we need to get the words, this transition, into the language of the purpose of the Office. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
227 

Chairman BAIRD. What might be constructed is rather than trying to wordsmith it in detail here, which we could do, but this is 

Subcommittee markup. We are going to be going to Full Committee 

with the consent of the Chairman who spoke earlier. We might be 

able to revisit this issue in that interim if Mr. Ehlers is amenable, 

and rather than trying to wordsmith it here, the sense of Dr. 

Ehlers to keep that attention there but, Mr. Garamendi and I think 

many other Members of the Committee have spoken well on this, 

let’s bring the amendment up to a vote at this point with the proviso that we will revisit this before it goes to full markup. 

But, of course, if Members oppose that, they are free to vote nay, 

and that is obviously an option here as well. 

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, if Mr. or Governor Garamendi 

would yield just a moment, part of the—we have been very strict 

about going through regular order on this committee, and that is 

letting the subcommittees have hearings, you know, we have subcommittee markups and then we will go to Full Committee, and 

that is really the purpose. I mean, this is, you know, a legitimate 

concern on both sides. It was raised, and as Chairman Baird said, 

I think we can work this out, but, again, this is the reason why 

it is good to have subcommittee markups to raise these issues, and 

we—I am sure we can get it worked out. 

We are all on the same—we are all in good faith, I think, saying 

the same thing. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, I suppose that if this is going to go forward, I want to lay down a marker that says I think we ought to 

have this transition in the language for the Department, and you 

know, fine, we can accept the amendment, but I want to be very 

clear about the necessity of transition, and I recall well Dr. Ehlers’ 

discussion about the Agricultural Extension Service and the way in 

which that operates in transitioning. 

Now, so they got basic science and transition from the basic 

science and agriculture to the application of that in the real world, 

and I think we ought to make sure that, in my view, that needs 

to be part of the role of this office. 

I want to lay down my own marker here about where I am coming from on this matter. 

Chairman BAIRD. Hearing no further discussion, the vote occurs 

on the amendment. All those in favor will say aye. Opposed, no. 

No. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to, and I will 

look forward to working with our colleagues to resolve these, I 

think very legitimate and important questions, and we will do that 

in the interim before the markup. So thank you for your input on 

this. 

The third amendment on the roster is an amendment offered 

again by the gentleman from Michigan, Dr. Ehlers. Dr. Ehlers, are 

you ready to proceed with this amendment? 

Mr. EHLERS. I am ready, and we can go very rapidly if no one 

has any questions on it. 

Chairman BAIRD. The clerk will report the amendment, please. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 033, amendment to the Committee Print offered by Mr. Ehlers of Michigan. 

Chairman BAIRD. Ask unanimous consent to dispense with the 

reading. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
228 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman from Michigan for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. EHLERS. Once again this is a matter of language. We are trying to clarify what we are doing here and making an accord with 

the President’s request, budget request. 

Part of the role of this authorization is to codify the Energy Frontier Research Centers for the first time, and this amendment will 

align the authorization within this bill with the DOE description 

of the Energy Frontier Research Centers. 

DOE’s description of the centers in the budget states, ‘‘The 

EFRCs, that is the Energy Frontier Research Centers, harness the 

most basic and advanced discovery research in a concerted effort to 

accelerate the scientific breakthroughs needed to create advanced 

energy technologies for the 21st century. These centers bring together critical masses of researchers to conduct fundamental energy research in a new era of grand challenge science and use-inspired energy research.’’ 

And I might just insert here a comment that is basically what 

I believe a number of Members here are saying they would like to 

see. 

Since technology development, demonstration, or commercial application is not mentioned as the purpose of the centers, it is clear 

to me that the frontier centers clearly are fundamental research 

projects. The bill should make that clear. My amendment would incorporate the language from the budget, so instead of saying on 

page 4, ‘‘to meet energy research development, demonstration, and 

commercial application needs identified in,’’ the language would be 

amended to say, ‘‘to conduct fundamental and use inspired energy 

research to accelerate scientific breakthroughs related to needs 

identified in.’’ 

I—again, the whole idea is just to clarify and make sure that we 

are in sync with what the President has requested, what the Department has been doing and hopes to continue to be doing. 

So I urge its adoption. 

Chairman BAIRD. Thank the gentleman. Is there further discussion of the amendment? 

Mr. Luja ́n is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

Just, again, to reiterate the same concerns that we brought up 

before and not to continue this discussion but look forward to looking at this as well to make sure that we find that vehicle going forward to support commercialization. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BAIRD. Your point is well made yet again. 

Further discussion? 

Hearing none the motion or the vote occurs on the amendment. 

All in favor, say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the Chair 

the ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. 

The fourth amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 

the gentleman from Illinois, Dr. Lipinski. Are you ready to proceed 

with your amendment? 

Mr. LIPINSKI. I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman BAIRD. The clerk will report the amendment. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
229 

The CLERK. Amendment number 058, amendment to the Committee Print offered by Mr. Lipinski of Illinois. 

Chairman BAIRD. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the 

reading. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain this amendment. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Chairman Baird, and I appreciate all 

the hard work that you and Chairman Gordon have put into this 

legislation that we are considering today. I would also like to thank 

Ranking Member Inglis and Congresswoman Biggert of Illinois for 

their work and leadership on this. 

This legislation definitely is vital for long-term competitiveness 

for our country, and I am very proud to be a cosponsor of it. 

This amendment is a small step toward improving U.S. manufacturing competitiveness. I don’t need to tell anyone that American 

manufacturers are facing hard times. If we want to stop manufacturing jobs continuing to go overseas, we need to compete on innovation and quality. High-performance computing modeling and simulation tools help domestic manufacturers compete by reducing design cycle time and development costs, improving performance and 

efficiency, and reducing waste. 

It is a potentially game-changing technology, a crucial domestic 

edge that can help build and sustain our manufacturing sector. The 

Office of Science has long been a leader in advanced scientific computing research, and indeed, many of our largest companies have 

sought out their expertise, forged productive partnerships, and 

built significant competitive advantages. 

Companies like Proctor and Gamble, Boeing, and General Electric are taking advantage of national lab facilities, but too many 

manufacturers, especially small manufacturers, have no idea what 

tools and expertise are out there or even who to talk to at the national labs. This is an issue that has been brought to me by many 

manufacturers, and I think there is much more that we can do. 

My amendment would help solve this problem by establishing an 

outreach program within the Advanced Computing Program. It 

would aim to build public-private partnerships between manufacturers and national labs, opening the door for a broad range of new 

collaborations. 

So simply within the Advanced Computing Program to have this 

outreach program it would help to make many manufacturers 

aware of what is available and hopefully will help them to also 

compete better in the world economy. This is something, as I said, 

that many of the larger manufacturing companies take advantage 

of. I want to do all we can to broaden that, so I think this is a modest, commonsense step, and I ask my colleagues to support this 

amendment. 

Chairman BAIRD. I thank the gentleman from Illinois. 

Is there further discussion? 

Mr. Garamendi. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. A question on this. I agree totally with what is 

being proposed here, but my question relates to the role of the Director, and I think out of ignorance here I am asking a question 

of the Chair. The Director is responsible for overseeing specific labVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00235 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
230 

oratories. I think there are ten labs that the Director oversees. 

There are other laboratories that are doing major computational 

science, and those are under the National Nuclear Security Agency. 

Livermore and Los Alamos are two that come immediately to mind. 

They have the potential of playing a—the exact similar role, but 

because the—this is directed towards the other labs, not those labs, 

it would be, I think, in our interest to broaden this particular section to include or to allow the Director to work with the other laboratories to achieve a similar goal. 

Chairman BAIRD. It is my understanding—I will defer to counsel 

on this, but it is my understanding that we really don’t—if you are 

referring to the DOD, the jurisdictional issues of the other— 

Mr. GARAMENDI. This is the Department of Energy laboratories, 

the National Nuclear Security labs. Or the agency oversees the 

Livermore Lab and the Los Alamos Lab that have great computing 

capabilities and could play a role similar to what is played here, 

and perhaps that ought to be in a different section, a different part 

of the COMPETES Bill. 

But clearly those laboratories can play the same role that Mr. Lipinski is trying to achieve here. 

Chairman BAIRD. There are just two quick issues on that, if I 

may. 

One, the jurisdictional issue. We certainly don’t want to write 

this bill in such a way that we get bounced into a DOD jurisdictional fight, which could happen I would imagine, but secondly, my 

understanding of that issue is there are some fairly significant security issues when one makes those assets available that are also 

present in the other but less so. 

But I will defer—if counsel wants to address this in some way, 

I will defer to them. 

COUNSEL. The Committee has jurisdiction over energy research, 

development, demonstration, and commercial application activities. 

The Committee does not have jurisdiction over national security activities within NNSA. That is the Armed Services Committee. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I think that is not the case. The—within the 

Department—do we have the Department of Energy? 

COUNSEL. We have parts of the Department of Energy. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. But not the national— 

COUNSEL. Not the national security activities of the NNSA. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I will pursue this separate and apart. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you, Mr. Garamendi. We will discuss 

that further. 

Are there further discussion? 

If not, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. 

Those opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed 

to. 

The fifth amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 

the gentleman from California, Mr. Garamendi. Are you ready to 

proceed with your amendment? 

The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 001, amendment to the Committee Print offered by Mr. Garamendi of California. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
231 

Mr. GARAMENDI. This amendment deals with the fusion power 

issues and specifically asks that the Director report back to us 

within 180 days of the completion of the study by the National 

Academy of Sciences. 

In other words, we need to know, and so please tell us. 

Chairman BAIRD. I appreciate the gentleman for his brevity. A 

commonsense request. 

Is there further discussion with comparable brevity on the 

amendment? 

That is the best. If no, then the vote occurs on the amendment. 

All in favor, say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The 

amendment is agreed to. 

The sixth amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 

the gentleman from Illinois, Dr. Lipinski. Dr. Lipinski, are you 

ready to proceed with your amendment? 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Yes. I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman BAIRD. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 057, amendment to the Committee Print offered by Mr. Lipinski of Illinois. 

Chairman BAIRD. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the 

reading. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain the amendment. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The amendment at the desk will improve the implementation of 

the Science Laboratories Infrastructure Program created in this 

bill. All of us understand that the Office of Science laboratories are 

national assets that consistently deliver remarkable discoveries in 

scientific tools, but many of the buildings and facilities of the Office 

of Science laboratory system are reaching the end of their useful 

lives. We need to make sure that they can support the scientific 

mission of the Office of Science, that we are taking care of the investments we have already made, and that our national labs continue to be vital resources for academic and industrial scientists 

alike. 

The Infrastructure Modernization Program will help address 

these concerns, and I am glad that it is part of this legislation. My 

amendment simply will require basic information about maintenance and infrastructure needs and associated funding requirements to be included in a report to Congress. 

So simply this is about reporting. I think it will certainly be very 

helpful. It is critical to know what maintenance is needed, what the 

infrastructure needs are, the funding, just to have more information as we move forward on this. 

So I ask for support of this simple yet important amendment, 

and I yield back. 

Chairman BAIRD. Is there further discussion of the amendment? 

Ms. Biggert. 

Ms. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would support this 

amendment. I think there are so many of the labs that really are 

in need of maintenance on their infrastructure, and sometimes that 

gets lost, you know, in the funding because it tends to be at the 

bottom of the list, and I think that we all know that no matter 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
232 

what infrastructure, whether it is a lab or anything else, our 

houses or whatever, that you really need to take care of things as 

we move along and not wait until it is, you know, such a crucial 

element and much more expensive. 

And I would support the amendment. 

Chairman BAIRD. The gentlelady’s point is well taken. We have 

had hearings here not only about the federal labs but about university labs, and I think it is symptomatic. We all want to do the new 

thing, and we don’t maintain what we have got sometimes. 

Further discussion? 

Hearing none, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, 

say aye. Those opposed, not. The ayes have it, and the amendment 

is agreed to. 

The seventh amendment on the roster is an amendment offered 

by the gentleman from Michigan, Dr. Ehlers. Dr. Ehlers, are you 

ready to proceed with your amendment? 

Mr. EHLERS. Yes. I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman BAIRD. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 035, amendment to the Committee Print offered by Mr. Ehlers of Michigan. 

Chairman BAIRD. Ask unanimous consent to dispense with the 

reading. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This addresses an issue about setting authorizations in the bill, 

which is something that we normally have not done, and in particular my concern is there are certain authorizations established 

which are quite high and others are not set and presumed would 

continue at the previous rate. 

Let me just get into some of the specifics here, and the wording 

specifics set aside to Congress is as exercising its right to establish 

priorities for research funding at the Department. However, I fear 

that we have overlooked the important contributions of nuclear 

physics, high-energy physics, and fusion energy sciences by not establishing authorizations for these programs. 

The Nuclear Physics Program, for example, funds a workforce at 

our universities that is critical to any nuclear future, and I think 

most individuals who are concerned about electricity generation in 

the future regard nuclear as the best option at this point. 

This committee is very intent on solving some of the challenges 

of nuclear waste and the fuel cycle, and there is no way we are 

going to competitive in the arena unless we are educating students 

in this area. 

Additionally, I am concerned that the precedent set here is one 

of Congress picking winners and losers. In the context of a fiveyear authorization, the Department may need flexibility to work 

within its overall authorization to adjust different programs year to 

year. 

Consequently I believe that we will allow for the potential for the 

agency to be more competitive if we remove the specific authorization levels for any of these programs. My amendment would remove the set-aside authorizations from the bill entirely, remaining 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
233 

silent on funding for the Office of Science except for the overall Office of Science authorization levels. This is what we have traditionally done. 

Let me give some specific examples. I have here increases in 

BES, BER, and ASCR. That is the alphabet soup for various programs, but it specifies increases of 10.6 percent in authorization for 

2012, 10.6 for 2013, 9.5 for 2014, 10.2 for 2015. Now, I would love 

to see this increase in authorizations, especially if it would lead to 

increase in appropriations. 

But the cost is that we are holding the fusion, fission, and nuclear increases of 3.2 percent, 2.9 percent, 4.0 percent, and 2.9 percent by remaining silent on that without giving any numbers. That 

is just not a good match. 

And the question is why are we proposing this, and my suggestion is that we will remove these set-aside authorizations and continue as we have in the past, working between this committee, the 

Appropriations Committee, and the Department of Energy to establish good authorizations each year and appropriations each year. 

So that is the purpose of the amendment, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BAIRD. Mr. Garamendi is recognized. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I guess because I am such a freshman that I am 

going to be talking more than perhaps I should. Dr. Ehlers, I agree 

entirely with you about the fusion and the nuclear energy issue, 

but I am not sure that I agree on the way in which you are trying 

to accomplish it here. I think it is—I am perfectly happy to tell people what I think we ought to be doing, how we ought to be spending money from this committee, and it does this, although it doesn’t 

speak to the fusion piece of it, which I think we ought to. 

In other words, I think we ought to tell them, here is how we 

believe things ought to be spent, and I would prefer that you would 

not strike this but add the fusion piece to it and work through that 

process. 

Mr. EHLERS. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Certainly. 

Mr. EHLERS. That may well be a possibility, but then I think we 

have to sit down and look at the whole area, and traditionally we 

have not done this. We have set authorizations for the Department 

and then every year worked with the appropriators and the Department to choose the specific numbers for that year. 

I am very concerned about the fusion aspects. You, of course, are 

worried about the laser activity and things of that sort, but also we 

are collaborators with several other nations in developing the ITER 

Project in France, and that, again, is starting to reach fruition, and 

we are going to need substantial increase in that area. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I guess what I would—if you would yield? 

Mr. EHLERS. Yeah. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. What I would recommend here is that we enter 

into a really serious discussion about how to allocate these funds 

and see to it that the fusion piece of it is properly noted and allocated. Now, I am all for this committee suggesting in legislation 

how the appropriators ought to appropriate. 

Mr. EHLERS. Well, there are many, many different issues if I 

may. I raised the one about the educational programs. I thought it 

was a horrible mistake some years ago when we basically cut out 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
234 

the nuclear reactor programs at a number of universities, including 

the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, which had one of the best 

educational programs. Now we need nuclear engineers. We don’t 

have them. 

And so I thought that was very short-sighted, and it is proving 

to be that. So I think, yeah, I am certainly amenable, Mr. Chairman, to having continued discussion on this before we move onto 

the Floor with it, but I would suggest we just adopt the amendment now and work together on coming up with the final version 

that we will present on the Floor. 

Chairman BAIRD. Mr. Garamendi, do you yield back your time? 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, I will just go back to say that I think what 

needs to be done here is to bring the nuclear issue into this and 

add that into it rather than subtracting what is already here. Obviously the numbers are going to change, and that is to be expected. 

Either way as long as we get to the end where we use what 

power this committee has to say here is our priorities, and I certainly think we ought to add the nuclear fission, fusion into it. And 

I would love the education piece, too. 

Mr. EHLERS. Yeah. 

Chairman BAIRD. Ms. Biggert. 

Ms. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong support 

of this amendment. I do have a concern about the appearance of 

singling out the three specific programs, and I think that it really 

raises the question of winners and losers. Are we really, you know, 

deciding what funding—and since the funding goes through 2015, 

I think we lose flexibility since we are talking about basic research 

and programs that will change as the years go along, and to decide 

that—which ones will get a specific amount of money when one 

year they might need more, the next year they might need less, 

and I think this has to be decided, you know, in NIH, you know, 

we have the research there. 

We don’t decide how much is going to go to cancer research, how 

much is going to go to a specific, you know, diabetes, whatever. 

That really is left up to the experts, and I think we lose the flexibility for all of these programs. 

And I think it is sending a, you know, it is sending a real message that there are favorite programs, and I also think that it could 

discourage researchers, young researchers deciding what kind of 

program they want to go into, and they see that there is a lack of 

commitment for a—to a broad-based national science program so 

that they might not go into that, and that is how we are going to 

have losers that aren’t going to have the scientists going into that 

area. 

So I think that this is a real problem to just, you know, to have 

just the funding for those. We need the flexibility, and with that 

I would yield back. 

Mr. GORDON. Well, if the gentlelady would yield. 

Ms. BIGGERT. Yes, I will. 

Mr. GORDON. I think most of us would like to see increases, you 

know, across the board, and there will be increases across the 

board. I think we have to be somewhat practical here, and that is 

that the appropriators are going to be the ones that are going to 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
235 

finally put the, you know, put the money in the holes, where it is 

going to go. 

And so the question I guess is, you know, through the testimony 

that we have received from various witnesses is should we put a 

sort of a marker down as to we want to see general increases, but 

here are some areas that for our national, international competitiveness should be given priority. 

So it is just whether or not we want to, you know, go around the 

back door and whisper in the appropriator’s ear. I am not sure 

what that will do, or whether we should make some statement earlier. Again, this is not trying to penalize any other program. It is 

just, you know, whether or not we feel like we need to send a message to the appropriators. 

I thank you, and I yield back. 

Ms. BIGGERT. Well, my question is since we have already put 

down these markers for every year, we are saying that that is the 

way it is and let us say three years from now there is a new, you 

know, a new program that is really important and needs more 

funding and can that be changed? 

Mr. GORDON. Well, first of all, again, if the gentlelady would 

yield. Certainly it can change, and again, this is just a message to 

the appropriators. We may want to send them a different message 

later on. It is just, you know, how relevant do we want to be in 

trying to set priorities? 

Once again, this—otherwise what we are doing is just say increase, you know, that we are satisfied with the status quo, just, 

you know, if we are going to have a three percent increase or a four 

percent increase, just raise everything the same. 

And so, I guess, you know, again, whether or not we want to use 

some type of a statement from this committee, from the witnesses 

that we have heard from, that there should be some priorities. I 

know certainly talking with, talking with NASA, for example, Mr. 

Mollohan wants us to try to set some priorities. He wants us to try 

to give them some direction. I think to not do so we acquiesce the 

hearings that we have had, the recommendations that have come 

before us to appropriators who have not had that benefit. 

Ms. BIGGERT. Has that happened in the past, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. GORDON. Has what happened in the past? 

Ms. BIGGERT. Have we ever had a marker down and the appropriators have not acquiesced to that? Have we had a marker? 

Mr. GORDON. I can’t imagine that they have followed our wishes 

perfectly over the years. 

Ms. BIGGERT. I yield back. 

Chairman BAIRD. I thank the gentlelady. 

I recognize myself for five minutes. I am actually sympathetic to 

the argument of the Chairman and Mr. Garamendi. I think one of 

the roles of this committee and the reason we have hearings and 

the reason there is a Science Committee is that we have hearings, 

and we look at the expenditures and programs within the various 

agencies under our jurisdiction, and we quite appropriately make 

recommendations. That is what it means to be on this committee. 

That is what it means to have a Science Committee. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
236 

Of course, the appropriators sometimes ignore that, but I think 

it is important for us to put direction down. Now, a couple of points 

about that. 

One, there is room in the bill as written for all, for growth in all 

of the areas, so if it is more specified in some than others, but 

there is room for growth in all of the areas, and we are talking 

about fairly generous growth relative to other aspects of the federal 

budget. 

Secondly, in the areas in which—that are singled out here for 

perhaps somewhat greater authorization levels, are areas that in 

the Committee’s judgment based on the hearings we have had are 

more likely to produce rewards for the investment, and that is why 

we have chosen to single those out. 

And then, third, some of the areas that are being identified by 

the amendment as somehow—or by the discussion of the amendment at least somehow subject to neglect, already receive a fairly 

generous portion of the funding budget of the overall budget. So 

though I understand the sentiment of Dr. Ehlers, in this case I am 

reluctantly inclined to oppose the amendment and maintain the 

legislation as written. 

Mr. EHLERS. Will the gentleman yield? 

Chairman BAIRD. I would be happy to yield. 

Mr. EHLERS. Just to comment on that, going back a little further 

in history, you recall some years ago the America COMPETES Act, 

we decided we wanted to increase the funding with authorization 

and appropriation of the Department of Energy and the National 

Science Foundation and so forth. Rather substantial increase. We 

talked about doubling and three years doubling it, five years, 

things of those sort, and that, I think, was a very important step 

forward because the research that we do in this Nation drives the 

economy in many ways. 

What I am drawing attention to here with my amendment is the 

lack of appropriate authorizations in my mind for fusion and nuclear and some of the others. The increases that are in authorizations that are in the bill are actually less than the inflation rate 

that we have averaged over the last five years, which is about 3.3 

percent. 

So that seems to me inappropriate when we are giving over 10 

percent increases annually for four years in a row to certain areas 

and holding others below the actual rate of inflation. So I, you 

know, it just seems to me that is shortsighted, and particularly in 

view of the needs that we are going to have in fusion in the next 

few years, the needs we are going to have in nuclear engineering, 

education, and so forth. 

So my attempt is to try to—maybe I am taking a sledgehammer 

to it by saying we are just going to set these aside, and I am open 

to other ways of approaching them, but I just think it is not wise 

to keep the levels in law that we have included in the bill at this 

point. 

Chairman BAIRD. I reclaim my time and recognize Mr. 

Garamendi. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, if I might, I find myself both in 

agreement and disagreement with Mr. Ehlers here. His point, I 

think, is one that is well taken that the overall authorizations, that 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
237 

is the $6 billion, $7 billion, and so forth, are below the rate of inflation, and since we are authorizing, we ought to authorize to the 

maximum extent that we can afford embarrassment, so just short 

of that point. That gives the authorization. Whether the money is 

going to be appropriated or not is another matter. 

And that—the three items in each of these three-year authorizations are really minuscule compared to the total. The first one is 

$3.1 million of the $6.2 billion. It is—and similarly small amounts 

in each of the years thereafter, but it does give direction to the Department, and I am all for, you know, I spent time as the Deputy 

Secretary at the Department of Interior, and I was quite happy to 

have total authority to spend the money anyway we wanted to 

spend it, but now I am here, and I want them to spend it the way 

I want them to spend it. 

So these are really small, and I would like to work with Dr. 

Ehlers on this and increase the total authorizations and if necessary, add the nuclear issues to it, including the education issues. 

You know, when I am on that side, give me all the power, and I 

will spend the money wisely. When I am on this side, let us spend 

it the way we think it ought to be spent, and I am delighted to 

work with it. 

I would suggest that the amendment not go forward, that we 

work on adding to this section the issues that Dr. Ehlers is concerned about. 

Chairman BAIRD. Mr. Garamendi, before I recognize colleagues 

on this side, I will just clarify. Some years ago, a couple—I am one 

of the few Members that actually read the ‘‘dark version’’ of the 

Intel Bill, and a few years ago as I read through it there was language that I think said that—that is a very good point. She said 

‘‘don’t tell, they will shoot me’’, but the gist of it was the preface 

language to the budgetary amounts said all—if I remember correctly-all numbers are in millions. And, in fact, it was actually 

thousands. Had they been in millions we would have been spending 

multiple trillions of dollars on—I can’t tell you what or they would 

shoot me, but we seem to have done that a little bit here. 

And the manager’s amendment corrects it, but there are typos in 

the text of the language. I am going to ask counsel to clarify that, 

so this is substantive, and I want to make—because we have got, 

I think, three orders. We have got a three orders of magnitude errors here, which is substantive. 

Counsel, could you clarify that just so Members looking at the 

text— 

COUNSEL. This is corrected in the manager’s amendment. 

Chairman BAIRD. But give us some examples just— 

COUNSEL. Okay. 

Chairman BAIRD. Mr. Garamendi cited a number which I think 

is actually about 1,000 higher, and it is not your mistake. It is the 

text of the bill. 

COUNSEL. The breakouts for the individual sub programs and the 

authorization levels need to all be multiplied by 1,000. They need 

three more zeros. 

Chairman BAIRD. Not your fault, Mr. Garamendi. No. You were 

reading well, and then that is why the hard part—as some of you 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
238 

know, I have championed this idea that we have time to read it, 

and that is why we have time to read these things so we find them. 

The manager’s amendment corrects some of that, but it is certainly misleading when one looks and says, ‘‘oh, this is not very 

much’’, and it turns out it is a lot. 

So apologies on behalf of the staff. I think Mr. Neugebauer wanted to be recognized. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Yeah, and I will just be brief. I think what I 

heard Mr. Ehlers say, and I want to be—clarify this, you know, 

there are some feeling here we need to bump up the authorization 

levels. I heard Mr. Ehlers saying that being specific about, you 

know, may limit the flexibility, but, you know, I think the overall 

question here is we are running these kinds of deficits that are 

truly unsustainable where we are talking about doubling the national debt in 5 years and tripling it in 10 years. 

Should this committee be sending a signal that we need to be 

bumping up spending? Should the signal be more—should we be 

sending a signal of prioritization, and whether we want to take on 

that prioritization or not is another discussion, but the real question here is is I think, you know, should we be moving forward 

with an authorization that is increasing when, you know, we are 

borrowing every dollar we spend under this authorization. As soon 

as it is appropriated, we are going to borrow 40 cents of that 

money. 

So I just ask that as—if Mr. Ehlers’ amendment helps us accomplish a push of the agency to—or for us to stop and pause and 

think, well, maybe as a committee we need to do some—help that 

prioritization, I am willing to do that, but I am a little reluctant 

to, you know, move down the road and saying we got to spend more 

money. 

Chairman BAIRD. Will the gentleman yield back? Just very briefly to respond and then I will recognize my colleague, Mr. Inglis, or 

actually if someone on this side wants to comment. I am very sensitive to that argument and respect it very much. 

I think one of the issues is if one looks at where, for example, 

our balance of trade deficit goes, a very substantial portion of that 

is energy dependence, and if one looks at a host of other things 

that are costing our economic competitiveness, it is contributed to 

by the cost of energy. 

My hunch is that every committee in this Congress believes that 

their jurisdiction is meritorious of an increase while the others 

aren’t, and they quite rightly can make arguments about that, but 

this is our committee. I will make the argument for it here. 

I agree with the gentleman. We need to find ways to reduce expenditures I believe, including entitlements and on the discretionary side. At the same time, however, I also believe that our 

competitiveness as a country economically and our ultimate financial stability is going to depend on breakthroughs in this very 

realm. That is why I am so enthusiastic about the Chairman’s initiative with COMPETES in general and ARPA–E. 

And so sensitive to this broader issue of fiscal implications, I do 

think we also have a responsibility to say from this committee’s 

perspective, at least my personal perspective, investments in energy are—have the potential to return a strong investment. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
239 

The gentleman’s point is well taken. 

Further discussion on this side? Mr. Inglis wanted to be recognized. 

Mr. INGLIS. Mr. Chairman, I think it is—what you just said is 

well said. We are borrowing an awful lot of money. When you have 

a debtor in possession, it is quite possible that bankruptcy court 

will allow the debtor to borrow some money if they got a good plan, 

a good idea that might get them out of bankruptcy, and that is 

really where we find ourselves as a country, I believe. 

And so you got to be asking, is it worth borrowing the money for 

this? And I agree with what the Chairman just said, that in many 

cases we have the opportunity here to power ourselves out of the 

current situation by breakthroughs. And so that all makes sense, 

and I think most people on our committee agree with that. 

We are sort of back to the beginning here, though, on this debate 

on Dr. Ehlers’ amendment here, because this is the very first debate we were having on the first Ehlers’ amendment, which is is 

this committee going to try to direct the Office of Science to do applied research? Or is it going to preserve the Office of Science pure 

science role? I think this is—I don’t know if Dr. Ehlers wants to 

comment on that, but I think the amendment he is talking about 

here is just the same as our first amendment, which is—or the first 

amendment that you offered, is the question if these sort of directions in A, B, and C in the language here are really designed to 

direct the Office of Science, it seems to me, to do applied work rather than to do the basic work. 

And so it goes back to that first question. 

Chairman BAIRD. And that is a recess call and not a vote. 

Mr. INGLIS. And it is also—I think it is important to note that 

while it is possible for us to revisit this authorization and change 

these numbers if there is a breakthrough as Dr. Ehlers well points 

out with some new technology, the problem would be that it is a 

fairly complicated reprogramming process for the Department of 

Energy to go through with the appropriators to move that one 

around, which takes time, and we might not have time. We are in 

a race with the Chinese, for example, on these technologies, and if 

we plan on winning that race, we need some flexibility at the Department. 

And it is an odd place that we on this side of the aisle find ourselves in. We are here arguing for flexibility on behalf of a Democratic Administration to move quickly to change things at the Department of Energy. So we find ourselves in a rather awkward position here, arguing for flexibility for Secretary Chu to do what we 

needs to do with new developments. 

So we are trying to help him out. It is sort of an odd position, 

so I yield back. 

Chairman BAIRD. Very interesting observation with respect to 

the Administration and Secretary Chu. I still think we want to exercise some jurisdiction here. 

Is there further discussion, or shall we call the vote on this? 

Hearing no further discussion, the vote occurs on the amendment. All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed, no. It appears the 

no’s have it. The no’s have it. The amendment is not agreed to. 

Mr. EHLERS. Could I ask for a recorded vote? 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
240 

Chairman BAIRD. The gentleman asks for a recorded vote. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Chairman Baird. 

Chairman BAIRD. No. 

The CLERK. Chairman Baird votes no. Mr. Costello. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Woolsey. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Woolsey votes no. Mr. Luja ́n. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Luja ́n votes no. Mr. Tonko. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Johnson. Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Johnson votes no. Mr. Lipinski. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lipinski votes no. Ms. Giffords. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Giffords votes no. Mr. Matheson. 

Mr. MATHESON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Matheson votes no. Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Davis votes no. Mr. Chandler. 

Mr. CHANDLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chandler votes no. Mr. Garamendi. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Garamendi votes no. Mr. Gordon. 

Mr. GORDON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gordon votes no. Mr. Inglis. 

Mr. INGLIS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis votes aye. Mr. Bartlett. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bartlett votes aye. Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers votes aye. Mrs. Biggert. 

Ms. BIGGERT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Biggert votes aye. Mr. Akin. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer votes aye. Mr. Diaz-Balart. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Diaz-Balart votes aye. Mr. Hall. 

[No response.] 

Chairman BAIRD. Would the clerk—has everyone voted, or are 

there additional Members? 

Mr. Tonko. 

The CLERK. Mr. Tonko is not recorded. 

Mr. TONKO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Tonko votes no. 

Chairman BAIRD. Are all other Members recorded that wish to 

be recorded on both sides? 

The clerk will report the tally. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
241 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, six Members vote aye, and 12 Members vote no. 

Chairman BAIRD. It appears the no’s prevail, and the amendment 

is not agreed to. 

Thank the gentlelady. 

With that the eighth amendment on the roster is an amendment 

offered by the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Biggert. Ms. Biggert, 

are you ready to proceed with your amendment? 

Ms. BIGGERT. Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment 

at the desk. 

Chairman BAIRD. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 096, amendment to the Committee Print offered by Mrs. Biggert of Illinois. 

Chairman BAIRD. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the 

reading. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10aa.eps
242 

Without objection, so ordered. 

And I recognize the gentlelady for five minutes to explain her 

amendment. 

Ms. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment is very 

straightforward. It proposes to reduce the funding level for the Office of Science by roughly two to three percent from the proposed 

levels in the underlying text with proportional changes to the setasides for each prescribed sub program. 

And, you know, I have long supported and will continue to support opportunities to enhance the mission of the Office of Science 

and the funding to support that mission. In fact, every year I lead 

a letter to appropriators that request increased funding levels for 

the Office of Science, consistant with COMPETES. This year we 

had over 40 signatures for the fiscal year 2011, request for the Office of Science at $5.12 billion and which also is the Administration’s request for the year 2011. 

And I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter a copy of 

that letter into the record. 

Chairman BAIRD. Without objection. 

Ms. BIGGERT. Thank you. 

Ms. BIGGERT. However, Mr. Chairman, consider the country’s 

economic state and the recent infusion from the America Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act to the Office of Science, I thought we could 

find more reasonable authorizing levels for the Office of Science as 

we work to craft a new COMPETES bill. And, again, this would be 

at the Administration’s level. 

I believe that we can support and work with the Office of Science 

with the proposed changes in my amendment, and thank you for 

calling this subcommittee markup this morning, and I am very 

pleased to be a sponsor of this bill. I just think that we are spending too much across the board, and this would be—help to reduce 

this—the spending and move forward with our economy. 

So—and I thank you for having the opportunity to work with you 

to reauthorize the Office of Science, and I would yield back. 

Chairman BAIRD. I thank the gentlelady for her amendment, and 

I thank the gentlelady for her input. This is one of those cases 

where I suppose if all across the board all other committees would 

agree to the relevance of a cut for them, the context would be different, but I still maintain the point I made with Mr. Neugebauer 

earlier. The Rising Above the Gathering Storm report, as you know, 

called for a doubling over time, and the premise was that we are 

falling behind some of our economic and potentially strategic competitors as well, and if we continue to fall behind, we will never 

catch up. And that is not a position we want, and the driver of our 

economy over the last few decades has largely been technological 

innovation, and this is an area where we urgently need it. 

So though I am sympathetic and I would not be surprised if the 

actual appropriations don’t match the authorized levels, giving that 

amount of imprimatur that we believe there is merit to increasing 

spending in this area as an investment by the American people is, 

I think, appropriate in this case. 

I will be happy— 

Ms. BIGGERT. Will the gentleman— 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
243 

Chairman BAIRD. Yes. I will be happy to yield to Ms. Biggert, 

then I will recognize the Chairman. 

Ms. BIGGERT. Thank you. 

Chairman BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I will yield to Ms. Biggert and 

then I will recognize you for five minutes. 

Mr. GORDON. Okay. Perfect time. 

Ms. BIGGERT. I think the—because of the Stimulus, which was 

$16 billion coming in, which was, I think, you know, a God-send 

to the Department of Energy and to the Office of Science and really 

shows a commitment to answering the, you know, the rising tide, 

and I really, you know, believe that we—and have always supported doubling the Office of Science, and I think we worked on 

that starting in 2005. We always have a few setbacks, but I do 

think that to drop it by—would end up to be, I think, a $1 billion 

cut, would really show that we can do this and yet not break the 

bank. 

Chairman BAIRD. I thank the gentlelady. 

The Chairman is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. GORDON. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me make a couple of points. First of all, Rising Above the 

Gathering Storm did recommend that we double the funding in this 

area. They didn’t really say over what period of time. Many of us 

wanted it to be over a seven year period, others wanted it longer. 

We wound up doing it at a 10-year period just to try to be more 

frugal during this period. 

That is one point. Another point that I would make is that, 

again, this is an authorization rather than an appropriation, and 

I think it does make sense to have a little more flexibility in the 

authorization level in case there was some kind of an emergency 

that came up or some kind of breakthrough since we are talking 

about, you know, a few years here. 

With that said, I think that as we get to the final, to the Full 

Committee markup, there may be some reductions down. Again, I 

don’t want to leave anything on the table in the future if we need 

to have some increases, but also there is no need making it unnecessarily combative or unnecessarily controversial by having unrealistically-high numbers. 

But would I would suggest is that we adjust it across the board 

and that we wait until the Full Committee so that we can look at 

it in context to all of the various agencies. 

And I yield back my time. Thank you. 

Ms. BIGGERT. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. GORDON. I will regain my time, and yes, I will— 

Ms. BIGGERT. Would you—would the gentleman be willing to 

work with me— 

Mr. GORDON. Absolutely. Absolutely. I think we need to look at 

this, I mean, and you are someone who wants to look at it, you 

know, in a positive, constructive way. Again, let us try to not leave 

anything on the table, as I say, in case there is an emergency in 

the future, but at the same time let us not give unnecessary heartburn by making authorizations that are—we all know would be unreasonable to ever meet. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
244 

I would be happy to continue to work with you, and again, in the 

full context of the America COMPETES Bill as we go to the final— 

to the full committee markup. 

Ms. BIGGERT. Then I would be willing to withdraw my amendment. 

Chairman BAIRD. I thank the gentlelady, and I concur with the 

Chairman. 

Dr. Bartlett, you wanted to be recognized though the amendment 

is withdrawn, but I will still out of courtesy and respect allow you 

to speak. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much. As everyone knows I have 

been a very strong supporter of basic and applied research and the 

Office of Science, and I wanted to make a couple comments relative 

to the ARPA–E. 

I hope that we will be able to use far more money than that to 

authorize the bill for ARPA–E, but I am not certain, and my concern is I don’t know how rapidly they can responsibly grow this 

program. Ramping up to $1 billion over-by the way, I hope that it 

can be more than that because as you know, I believe that our 

country faces some huge—the world and our country faces some 

huge challenges in energy, and I would like to see even more than 

this amount of money profitably, effectively used, but I am not sure 

they can do that. 

What kind of oversight can we have so that we can redirect this 

funding in future years, if, in fact, they are not able to responsibly 

let grants and contracts in these amounts? I just don’t want that 

money to be there and they have the rush at the end of the year 

to spend it all, and it won’t be spent productively. 

Will we have adequate oversight opportunities so that we can 

modify the—I would like to up them, by the way. I would like them 

to have a lot of unfunded projects that were very meritorious so the 

next year we can have more money for this. Do we have opportunities to do that? 

If so, I am okay with these funding levels. If not, I am somewhat 

squeamish about them because I don’t want them to have huge 

amounts of money that they cannot responsibly use. 

Chairman BAIRD. Mr. Bartlett, if you will yield. 

Mr. BARTLETT. I will be happy to. 

Chairman BAIRD. I may—if counsel can remember the numbers 

off the top of his head I will ask them or perhaps the Chairman 

does, my understanding of the ARPA–E fund, and of course, that 

is not the topic right here of Ms. Biggert’s amendment, but I believe they had 3,700 applications for the initial round of ARPA–E 

grants, knock that down to what was it, 140 and then further 

knock that—does counsel remember these numbers off the top of 

their head? 

COUNSEL. It was 3,700 applications. It was then knocked down 

in the next round to roughly 300, and then the final awards were 

37. 

Chairman BAIRD. Okay. So they—so very—there were a lot more 

applicants and when I—they were very rigorous, and to their credit 

they turned it around faster with, I think, tremendously distinguished people on the review panel to get these things moving. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
245 

So the gentleman’s point, unlike sometimes we hear federal 

agencies going out and almost creating projects to spend the 

money, here it was the reverse. They had enough applicants that 

they were actually rejecting very worthwhile applications, and then 

they moved them to later rounds. 

But I share the gentleman’s concern. I think in the case of 

ARPA–E we actually see an abundance of opportunities that are 

actually—we would like to meet but we don’t have resources for. 

Mr. GORDON. Would the gentleman yield? 

Chairman BAIRD. I would be happy to. 

Mr. GORDON. Again, this is an authorization rather than an appropriation, and so what we are doing is giving flexibility, and I am 

right in sync with your comments. 

Let me give you some maybe feeling of comfort in that this committee I would hope every year is going to call ARPA–E before it 

to have it be accountable and to monitor it. So, yes, we will be 

watching them every year and making sure that they are spending 

it properly. 

And then this, again, this is an authorization that if, you know, 

you in the future think that they are doing terrific and need more, 

then you have room for them. If you think, well, and we will tell 

that to the appropriator, if with reviewing what they are doing you 

think that it is not being done responsibly, then you can go to the 

appropriators and say, we have had this review, and we think that 

they need to be held a little more in check. 

So I think what we are trying to do here is accomplish exactly 

what you want, and that yearly monitoring will help to do that. 

Mr. BARTLETT. I appreciate that. Thank you very much. 

Ms. BIGGERT. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. BARTLETT. I will be happy to yield. 

Ms. BIGGERT. I just want to correct the record for something I 

said as far as the Stimulus that the Office of Science received. Not 

$16 billion but $1.6 billion. It would have been nice if they had received the $16 billion, but I want to make sure that that is corrected. 

Chairman BAIRD. I thank the gentlelady. These orders of magnitude problems we are having today. 

I thank the gentlelady and thank the gentleman for his comments. 

The amendment having been withdrawn but with the proviso 

that we are happy to discuss the issue further between now and 

the final markup we now proceed to the ninth amendment. The 

ninth amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by the 

gentleman from Florida, Mr. Diaz-Balart. Are you ready to proceed 

with your amendment? 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I 

hope that this amendment is one of the categories of trying to avoid 

unnecessary— 

Chairman BAIRD. Would the gentleman suspend for one moment? 

The clerk has a report. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 019, amendment to the committee print, offered by Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida. 

Chairman BAIRD. Now, the gentleman may proceed. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope this is a— 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
246 

Chairman BAIRD. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the 

reading. Without objection, so ordered. Now, the gentleman can 

proceed. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope this is one 

of the amendments to avoid unnecessary heartburn category. I 

really do. 

Look, I just—let me first put a couple things in perspective. In 2011, the budget that was submitted by the President is $3.8 trillion. The revenues, unfortunately, are $2.6 trillion. Now, that is followed by a budget of $3.6 trillion, with revenues of $2.4 trillion. The committee print before us authorizes over $40 billion over 

five years. So, let us go over some of the spending details. In the 

first year, funding of the bill, it recommends funding the Office of 

Science at 21 percent, or $1.1 billion above the Administration’s 

own request. 

Now, you know, one can criticize the President for a lot of things, 

but nobody has criticized the President for not spending enough 

money. And I am not, I mean, I think so. I mean, I think, that 

would be an unfair statement to criticize him for that. So, this is 

above the President’s recommendation. ARPA–E, which was funded 

in the stimulus Act, as Mrs. Biggert mentioned, and I mean, which 

is really a new program, the bill more than triples its funding over 

five years, triples it, and it extends it through 2020 with, ‘‘such 

sums as necessary.’’ 

The third part, the Energy Innovation Hubs, another new program, is being, that is being pursued by the Administration, and 

which appears, frankly, to be similar to the same technology efforts 

that we are already funding at DOE, is created, and would double 

in funding, double in funding over five years. Again, all this amounts to over $40 billion. Perspective. The 

State of Florida, one of the most populous states in the entire country, their entire budget last year was $66 billion. Just to put it in 

perspective. 

Now, perhaps most remarkable is that this bill is only one of 

three bills that will be merged together in an overall authorization 

package. So, this represents just the tip of the iceberg, when it 

comes to new spending authorization in the America Competes Act. 

Now, again, I am not criticizing the merits, at all, but we can’t 

think of this in a vacuum. This amendment would do the following. 

It would simply strike the out year funding. It doesn’t reduce the 

funding authorization in the first three years. It would just strike 

the out year funding to make it a three year authorization, which 

by the way, is consistent with the original America COMPETES 

bill. 

This is not—I am not inventing this. This is not a hostile amendment at all. Again, and I am not talking about the merits. What 

does that mean? That we would have to revisit the issue and then 

decide what the level should be. And again, we might decide that 

it should be even more if, you know, the economy is doing great, 

and the deficits are lower and, you know, we might want to authorize a lot more. It would just force us to look at the issue in three 

years. That is all this would do. 

This would allow our committee to conduct even more effective 

oversight over the entire Competes program, and then, come back 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
247 

in three years and review it. So, all I am asking is to give us, to 

make us review it in three years, and figure out where we are. 

Most importantly, this amendment would obviously, then, reduce 

the authorized spending in this bill by $18 billion, and then, we 

would have to re-look at it. 

Now, this Congress, and this Administration, frankly, we need to 

kind of just try to bring a little bit of sanity, let us at least force 

ourselves to look at it in three years, and then we will, we can decide to do what we want to do. 

Again, perspective. According to the CBO, the President’s budget 

raises the deficit to a record $1.5 trillion in 2010, and debt held by 

the public grows to $9.2 trillion this year, with no end in sight. And 

this bill goes above, above the President’s recommended levels. 

Again, all I am asking, just, as the chairman said, because it 

doesn’t, you know, nobody can say it cuts the program, it just 

forces us to look at it in three years. That is it. That is all this 

does. 

So, I am asking for a favorable vote, and I hope that it is taken, 

again, in, with the intent that it is. Just, let us just kind of, to 

avoid the heartburn, the chairman said, let us try to just look at 

it again in three years. Let us, give us that opportunity, and that 

is all the amendment does, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Chairman BAIRD. Thank the gentleman. I, having served with 

the gentleman on the Budget Committee, we don’t want to necessarily replicate all those discussions. I would just point out, for 

the record, that when President Clinton left office, the budget deficit was actually a surplus of $200 billion. At the final years of the 

President Bush Administration, the last budget for which he was 

accountable, the deficit stood at $1.3 trillion. During that interim, 

much of which was controlled by the Republican House and Senate, 

the federal debt doubled. The borrowing from foreign countries doubled. And our dependence on Chinese money more than doubled. 

And I would also say that if you look at the Clinton years, much 

of the economic expansion resulted from technological developments that increased productivity, and part of what we are trying 

to do here is promote technological innovation. 

Chairman Gordon wanted to be recognized. In a moment, I will 

recognize Mr. Gordon. 

Mr. GORDON. Well, you know, I don’t know that this is the place 

that we need to recap all of our past sins. There is plenty of blame 

to go around in terms of the debt. We are where we are now. I certainly agree that innovation will help us get out. 

And my friend from Florida, we are, again, I am sympathetic 

with much of what he says. Let me just sort of point out a couple 

of things. Reducing a five year authorization to a three year authorization doesn’t save you any money in those first three years. 

So, you know, it is a little bit of apples and oranges. 

We don’t have to wait to the end of either three or five to reauthorize. And as I said to Dr. Bartlett earlier, I hope that this committee, every year, is going to be reviewing these programs, and I 

hope, if they deserve it, you will give them more. If they don’t deserve it, you will reduce them. And so, I think that will be a part 

of, you know, your responsibility. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
248 

And I would also say the same thing that I said to Mrs. Biggert, 

and as you caught on, and I think very well, also. Again, we don’t 

want to be inflammatory here. I mean, there is, you know, I don’t 

want to leave anything on the table, but I don’t want to make your 

heartburn any more than necessary. 

So, why don’t we look at this in the full context, you know. We 

probably still won’t get to where you are, but hopefully, we will 

make you feel a little bit better. But let us look at it in the full 

context of this full America COMPETES bill, would be my recommendation. 

Chairman BAIRD. Dr. Bartlett wanted to be recognized. 

Mr. BARTLETT. I want to concur with the gentleman’s concern 

about our spending. There are few Members of the Congress who 

more consistently vote against spending than I do. The walls of my 

office are filled with awards as a testament to how consistently I 

vote against spending, but I would like to exempt two things from 

that, from those concerns. 

One is basic research. We spend less and less each year on basic 

research. That is exactly the equivalent of the farmer eating his 

seed corn. I have a lot of farmers. They aren’t dumb enough to do 

that. We are doing that in our country and in our Congress today. 

So, I would like to really increase funding there. 

The second place I would like to exempt is anything that has to 

do with energy. Every 12 days, the world uses a billion barrels of 

oil. Now, that stuns many people to know that. It is 84 million barrels a day. A little more than that now, actually, and that 84 goes 

into 1,000 about 12 times, so that means that every 12 days, we 

use a billion barrels of oil. 

We have 1.2 trillion barrels of oil, easy arithmetic, about at the 

sixth grade level, we have 40 years of oil left. Now, we are going 

to find more oil, but we would sure as heck like to use more oil. 

So would the Chinese and the Indians and a lot of developing nations. 

And if we are going to be more than lucky, if the more oil we 

find is more than the additional oil we would like to use. So, we 

are stuck with 40 years of oil. Almost nobody understands the urgency of this situation. 

So, you know, I really want to be, to cut drastically. We need to. 

Now, I have 10 kids, 17 grandkids, and two great grandkids, and 

I fully mortgaged the future of my kids and my grandkids, and 

now, we are working on my two great grandkids. So, you know, but 

I just think we need more money for basic research, and we need 

a hugely increased amount of money effectively spent on energy. 

So, although I concur with his overall concerns about spending, 

I would like to exempt these two areas, if I might. Thank you. 

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you, Dr. Bartlett. Ms. Giffords. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to add in there, as 

a proud co-sponsor of the Energy Innovation Hubs, that we are not 

creating new government labs that are going to be forever dependent. In fact, we are looking at a proven model. This is tried and 

true. Some of the examples include Bell Laboratories, Lincoln Lab 

as well. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
249 

I appreciate the comments made by Mr. Bartlett about our dependence on foreign energy, and it is precisely those concerns that 

are leading us to really innovate around these programs. 

Again, this is a maximum five year program. At that point, they 

need to be looked at and reexamined again, but it is really an opportunity for us to be innovative. So, I mean, I certainly understand and hear the concerns that are being spoken about, but I 

think the promise of what we are going to see out of the best and 

brightest in these Energy Innovation Hubs is pretty exciting stuff. 

And it is something that this committee has always been for, and 

we have advocated for. And frankly, the purpose of this committee 

is to get out in front of where those pockets of promise exist in our 

Federal Government. 

Thank you. 

Chairman BAIRD. Mr., anyone wish to be recognized on the minority side? Mr. Garamendi. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I really want to echo and expand on the comments of Dr. Bartlett. And I am going to back to a little history. 

Back in the ’70s, we decided to become energy independent, and we 

did it for about three or four years, and then we let it go, and we 

went back to oil. And here we are, once again, in a similar situation. 

We have to have a very long-term view of this, and we cannot 

start and stop. We have five years. Better, this should be a 25 year 

program, and this is on the research, but we also need the implementation of that research. Because Dr. Bartlett is quite correct. 

We got a real serious global problem here, and that will manifest 

itself not only in climate change, if you believe in that. But it is 

certainly going to manifest itself in troubles between nations, who 

are vying for the available energy supplies. And we have already 

seen that. A lot of what is going on in the world today is directly 

on that. 

It is, this is our opportunity on the research side, the scientific 

side, to really get ahead of the game, and we need a very, very 

long-term view of this. Three years, two years, that is a short time. 

And the problem here is the research is long-lasting. It takes a long 

time to get that research out there. So, we start today on some research, and then, it may be three, four, five, or 20 years before that 

research manifests itself in a solution to an extraordinary, serious 

problem for this globe. 

So, we need to have that long-term view, and with regard to the 

money, it is not a matter of throwing money at it, it is a matter 

of making the money available with the authorization, making the 

overall potential available, and then, the appropriators every year 

will do their thing. And hopefully, their thing will be a lot of money 

into this, but if we don’t authorize it, they cannot appropriate it. 

And so, we need to really be, I think, very thoughtful, longitudinal, that is, a long view, and we ought to have the potential 

there, and every year, the appropriators coming in, and hopefully, 

maximizing the potential, maximizing the money for this potential. 

The other thing is the role of this committee and oversight. It is 

extraordinarily important that the oversight take place. 

Thank you. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
250 

Chairman BAIRD. Thank the gentleman. I think the general concern about fiscal responsibility and this spending has been heard 

well. I think it is shared by both sides of the aisle. 

Mr. Gordon has talked about working with Ms. Biggert to lower, 

possibly, the authorization levels. I would share my commitment to 

that. The one thing I would say about shortening the duration is, 

having talked with a lot of federal agencies, especially if you take 

a program like the Hubs or others, the ideas, as Ms. Giffords pointed out, if you are trying to make an investment, people need, they 

need some reliability of funding. 

You know, like businesses are always coming to us and saying 

if you are going to change the tax code one way or another, we 

can’t make the investments. Perhaps a lower authorization level in 

some of these areas, but shortening that, people will say well, I am 

not sure we are going to have the funding two years from now. 

They can’t, you know, if you want to bring a top flight scientist on, 

and say, we want you to work on this major project for us, but we 

are not really sure we will have funding next year, the scientist is 

going to pass. If you say five years, and that is sort of how Bell 

Labs, it is how DARPA works, et cetera, and so, that is the rationale. 

And so, I appreciate the gentleman’s underlying concern. I know 

he has expressed it well and often, about the level of federal spending. I share that concern, but perhaps, a better way to deal with 

it is through an approach that tries to meet halfway with Ms. 

Biggert’s approach there, rather than the shortening of the term. 

So, if there is not further discussion, we will call the amendment. 

All those in favor will say aye. Those opposed, no. No. The no’s 

have it. The amendment is not agreed to. 

We now proceed to the tenth amendment on the roster, an 

amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland, Dr. Bartlett. 

Dr. Bartlett, the clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 019, amendment to the committee print, offered by Mr. Bartlett of Maryland. 

Chairman BAIRD. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the 

reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the gentleman 

for five minutes to explain the amendment. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have decided to 

withdraw the amendment that I was to offer this morning. 

A few weeks ago, my staff met with the chief scientist and executive of a small company that is developing innovative energy technology. They learned of the opportunity to respond too late, so they 

couldn’t respond. They shared with us a disappointing observation 

concerning the management of ARPA–E. 

As we know, DOE was under tremendous political pressure from 

the White House to spend the stimulus money appropriated for 

ARPA–E as fast as possible, though Congress didn’t confirm 

ARPA–E’s Director until the first tranche of awards was announced. 

These scientists observed what GAO has repeatedly found, and 

this is the GAO report, not us saying this. Among federal departments and agencies, DOE has, in their words, ‘‘a notoriously poor 

record for managing its funds and staff resources to achieve its 

chartered goals.’’ 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
251 

The purpose of my amendment was to set aside 30 percent of the 

funding for small business in ARPA–E, was to help ARPA–E, as it 

stands up, to achieve Congress’ intent of supporting breakthroughs 

in technology. 

A bit more than half of all of the employees in America work for 

small businesses, and considerably more than half of all the creativity and innovation comes from small business. So, I thought 

that 30 percent was a modest set-aside for small business. 

I would appreciate a commitment from the chairman to explore 

in more detail, before the full committee markup, how to help 

ARPA–E direct a comparable percentage of its awards to small 

business. 

Chairman BAIRD. I appreciate the gentleman’s intent. A strong 

advocate of small business. I share that intent, and I share the 

gentleman’s observation that often, the most innovative things 

come from small business. 

My understanding is, ARPA–E statistics suggest 43 percent of 

the first round of awards actually did go to small business. So, we 

are— 

Mr. BARTLETT. If the gentleman would yield. 

Chairman BAIRD. Would be happy to. 

Mr. BARTLETT. That is true, and I just want that to continue. 

That is not their history. Their history is, and you know, I worked 

for government, and I worked for captive government contractors, 

and I worked for big industry. I was IBM Federal System Division 

for a long, for eight years. So, I have been on both sides of that 

equation, and I know how easy it is to continue giving money to 

the guy you know. 

Joe submitted a really good proposal, but gee, I know Sam, and 

Sam performs pretty well for me, and I am going to be graded on 

how well my contractors perform. I am going to give this to Sam, 

even though Joe’s proposal looks better than Sam’s. 

I know that history, and I know that this is what the Department of Energy has been doing. And I just want to make sure that 

they continue this good performance. They are now at 43, I would 

like them not to slip below 30. So, let us talk about it before it— 

Chairman BAIRD. If the gentleman would yield, the reason that 

ARPA–E is set up the way it is, it is different. We all recognize 

those type of problems within the Department of Energy. This is 

not an old program. This is a year-old program that is trying to 

break the mold. And we are trying to give them the tools to be nimble and be flexible, and to break those molds. I think they are 

doing a good job, and I hope that there will be a role model, not 

only for the rest of the Department of Energy, but you know, for 

Federal Government in general. And— 

Mr. BARTLETT. I just want to make sure this good performance 

continues. 

Chairman BAIRD. I agree with, I share that. I would just say I 

hope we can also do, encourage ARPA–E to do another summit 

next year, wherein the various vendors display their wares. I don’t 

know if you got to go it, Dr. Bartlett. Knowing your passion for 

this, you would have been like a kid in a candy store there. The 

diversity of approaches that were being modeled, many of them 

from small startup business, a few from the large players, but was 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
252 

really, truly inspiring. I absolutely share your commitment. I appreciate the withdrawal of the amendment, and as the chairman 

mentioned earlier, we intend to follow through in our oversight responsibility every year, and this a question we should ask ARPA– 

E when they come back. Is keep us updated on the statistics of 

small business. 

With the amendment is withdrawn. Please. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield. 

Chairman BAIRD. Well, I will recognize Mr. Luja ́n. I will recognize Mr. Luja ́n. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Just as we proceed in making sure that we are able 

to retain the support for small business. I think this is an excellent 

point to bring forward, that we do not lose sight with some of the 

awards, with the attention to women-held businesses, veteran 

owned businesses, and minority businesses as well, and that we 

take that into consideration as we talk about this, as well. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BAIRD. Appropriately enough, the next amendment is 

the eleventh amendment on the roster. An amendment offered by 

the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Luja ́n. 

Mr. Luja ́n, are you ready to proceed with your amendment? 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman BAIRD. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 042, amendment to the committee print, offered by Mr. Luja ́n of New Mexico. 

Chairman BAIRD. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the 

reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the gentleman 

from New Mexico for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and appreciate this time, 

and appreciate the discussion today with Ranking Member Inglis, 

Chairman Gordon, for his work on ARPA–E. 

Our country is changing the way that we use and consume energy, and Congress and our President have committed to investing 

in the new development of energy technologies that will reduce our 

dependency on foreign oil, improve energy efficiency, and create a 

robust energy workforce. 

ARPA–E brings together a diverse community of energy researchers from the National Laboratories, universities, investor 

and commercial communities to develop cutting edge technologies 

that will help solve our energy problems. The ARPA–E reauthorization of 2010 adds a new goal to ARPA–E, of promoting the commercial application of advanced energy technologies. This is critically 

important, as the new scientific discoveries and technological innovations won’t improve the Nation’s energy security unless they are 

matured into commercial applications. 

My amendment today supports this goal by increasing the minimum percentage of funds that are to be used for ARPA–E’s technology transfer activities from 2.5 percent to five percent. Although 

my amendment strengthens the minimum percentage, it is still a 

small overall percentage for a program that should be promoting, 

accelerating, and engaging private entities, so that new technological innovations can be deployed. 

Furthermore, it clarifies that such technology transfer funds 

should be used within the responsibilities of program directors, 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
253 

mainly for identifying mechanisms for commercial application, a 

successful energy technology development projects, including 

through establishments of partnerships between awardee and commercial entities. 

The movement of technology from basic research to industry application supports economic growth and creates jobs. America is positioned to be a leader in tech transfer and commercialization, but 

we must encourage and incentivize and invest in technology transfer activities. 

I ask my colleagues to support my amendment, and I thank you 

for your consideration. I yield back. 

Chairman BAIRD. I thank the gentleman. Does anyone else wish 

to be recognized? Dr. Bartlett. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, this is not a role that DARPA, 

that DARPA plays. And I am wondering, if we can have a set aside 

for this, why can’t we have a set aside for small business? 

And then, I would like to ask a couple specific questions about 

some of the wording in there. The key phrases in the underlying 

bill language are promoting commercial applications, and identifying mechanisms for partnerships. 

I had some concern about what these two words mean. Promoting sounds like it could be anything, from direct funding to put 

a product on the shelf, to marketing type activities. Either way, if 

not bounded in some way, it sounds like a blank check for potentially inappropriate activities. 

It is the same story with mechanisms. What mechanisms does 

the majority have in mind? The bottom line is that if an awardee 

has developed a useful and valuable technology, the market will 

create a natural partnership with the awardee. What is bothersome 

is that one can envision the government using inappropriate pressure as one of its mechanisms in this context. 

I don’t think it is crazy to imagine DOE using its considerable 

contracting and even regulatory leverage to force partnerships. I 

was wondering about my concern for what these two words really 

mean. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. If the gentleman would yield. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Be happy to. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Mr. Chairman, if you look at the enabling legislation 

of ARPA–E, which is where I am amending, it is built into the allocation portion, which is under section 5(d), which states at least 2.5 

percent of the amount shall be used for tech transfer and outreach 

activities. This is already in there, and as with DARPA, when we 

talk about the technological advances that have spinoff capabilities, 

that are making their way to market, we should be looking to create stronger programs, even in DARPA, to push these out with 

these out with our Air Force research labs or Army research labs. 

Now, also in the enabling language, under section 2 of ARPA– 

E, when we look at ‘‘identifying and promoting revolutionary advances in fundamental sciences, translating scientific discoveries 

and cutting edge inventions, and to technological innovations, and 

accelerating transformational technological advances in areas that 

the industry, by itself, is not likely to undertake, because of technical or financial uncertainty.’’ I think it is an enabling legislation, 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
254 

when we talk about financial uncertainty about moving this forward. 

Furthermore, when we heard from the Chamber of Commerce, 

which I know is a strong advocate of creating jobs, they also highlighted, that when possible, this committee, when providing testimony to us on January 20, Mr. Donohue: ‘‘The committee should 

look at incentives that lead to public/private partnerships, the commercialization of new technologies, and regional STEM initiatives. 

This information ecosystem drives job creation, economic development, and regional stability that will contribute to regaining America’s lead in the global innovation market.’’ 

When we talk about COMPETES, I think that is what we are 

trying to achieve here, and we should look at creating these programs and expanding them, as opposed to depressing them and 

eliminating them. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you for your comments. I have familiarity 

with DARPA for many, many years. And ordinarily, DARPA ceases 

its involvement quite a long while before it enters the marketplace. 

They are there to provide funds for proof-of-principle, for ideas 

that industry can’t support, because they are just too iffy, or there 

is too much risk involved, and that is the role that they play. 

I am not arguing that this shouldn’t be done. I was just saying 

that we are now going further than DARPA does, and ARPA–E, if 

we are including this, because this is not a role that—I agree that 

this needs to be done, and if we want to make ARPA–E something 

different than something modeled after DARPA, then that is fine. 

I was just noting the inconsistency was all. Thank you very 

much. 

Chairman BAIRD. Further discussion? Mr. Inglis. 

Mr. INGLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In terms of promotion of 

ARPA–E, I would point out that, as I am seeing, there are 3,700 

applications and 37 awards for the first year of operation. 

So, it seems like it is well promoted. First round, yeah. First 

round. 

Mr. GORDON. If the gentleman would yield, it also says ‘‘and 

technology transfer,’’ so it is not limited to promotion. 

Mr. INGLIS. So, how do we make sure that it is not, we don’t go 

spending a great deal of money, though, on promotion, rather than. 

In other words, it seems like it is well promoted; it is obviously 

working quite well. If you get 3,700 applications for 37 awards. 

Mr. GORDON. This was, I think, put in at your request. I mean, 

this was, it is technology transfer also. So, this is not going to promotion. These are scientists. You know, I think they want to spend 

money, you know, they want the rubber to meet the road. They are 

not interested in, I think, a lot of hoopla. So, I don’t think we have 

to worry about that. 

Mr. INGLIS. So, that being the case, what if we took out promotion? Maybe the gentleman can consider a friendly amendment. 

Just take out the word promotion, and leave it at tech transfer or 

something. 

Chairman BAIRD. Would the gentleman yield for two points? 

Mr. INGLIS. Yeah. I would be glad to. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
255 

Chairman BAIRD. First, and I will let the gentleman speak to his 

amendment in just a moment. Well, I won’t—you will have to yield, 

but two points. 

One, a fundamental difference between ARPA–E and DARPA 

that came up repeatedly in the hearings we had here and in multiple conversations elsewhere I have had, is that DARPA has a 

guaranteed market. The Pentagon basically says you make this, we 

buy it, and we don’t have that market, guaranteed market, in the 

area of energy. 

And so, the premise was that you need to do more to make sure 

that these things actually cross the Valley of Death kind of bottleneck Ms. Biggert talked about. So, that would be, just the first is 

the principle that DARPA and ARPA–E are not going to be perfectly congruent in their function, because there is not the guaranteed marketplace within DARPA. 

The second thing is more of a procedural matter, in terms of, I 

think, this would not be a friendly, it might be a pretty complex 

friendly amendment. We would have to ask the clerk about it. Well, 

I am not sure you even want to make it, but so— 

Mr. INGLIS. I am withdrawing my friendly amendment request, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BAIRD. Is there further discussion? 

Hearing none, the motion occurs on, the vote occurs on the 

amendment. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. 

The ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to. 

The twelfth amendment on the roster is an amendment offered 

by the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Inglis. Mr. Inglis, are 

you ready to proceed with your amendment? 

Mr. INGLIS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BAIRD. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 024, amendment to the committee print, offered by Mr. Inglis of South Carolina. 

Chairman BAIRD. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the 

reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the gentleman 

from South Carolina for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. INGLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This amendment is consistent with some comments that I had at 

the beginning of ARPA–E. And when we started ARPA–E, my concern was, and other people’s concern was that the Office of Science 

would be harmed by the establishment of ARPA–E. In other words, 

funds would be siphoned off from the Office of Science and directed 

to ARPA–E. And that gets back to this question. We were discussing here several different ways today about whether we want 

to preserve the basic science at the Office of Science. 

And so, back then, what I proposed was that we not allow any 

funding for ARPA–E, unless the Office of Science kept pace with 

inflation in its funding. And so, what I am proposing here today is 

something very similar to that, and that is sort of establish a floor 

for the funding for Office of Science, such that it gets inflationary 

increases, and as long as it gets those, then ARPA–E may move up, 

but if Office of Science doesn’t get an inflationary increase, then 

ARPA–E is held at this, the initial number, which is $300 million. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
256 

So, that is the concept of this amendment, is basically, to preserve funding for Office of Science, and see that it doesn’t compete 

against ARPA–E funding. 

So, I would urge you to support the amendment. 

Chairman BAIRD. Thank the gentleman. The Chairman is recognized. 

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Inglis made this suggestion, this amendment 

during the original authorization last time, and it was accepted. 

But I would say to him that that was because it was a new program, and we wanted to make sure, again, it wasn’t going to cannibalize other things. I think we are seeing wide support for the 

Office of Science. 

I would also say that I think ARPA–E is basic research in many 

ways, and that it is not counter to other things. I would just say 

this, that in keeping our ability to have flexibility in the future, we 

might find that there are some areas in the Office of Science that 

aren’t doing as good as they should be doing, and that might be, 

and that they might come down. 

But if ARPA–E is doing a terrific job, then it would be, I think, 

not wise to have them penalized, because someone else was not 

doing well. So, again, I think it just takes away the flexibility. It 

was a worthwhile and accepted amendment the first time out, but 

now, we have a proven program, and I don’t think that it would 

be beneficial. 

Chairman BAIRD. Ms. Biggert is recognized. 

Ms. BIGGERT. Thank you. I would support this amendment, and 

I think that along with Mr. Inglis, I was always concerned about 

the takeover of funding from the Office of Science to provide for 

ARPA–E, and I think what the Chairman just said is reminiscent 

of the conversation we have just had with Mr. Ehlers’ amendment, 

with the markers for the three types of research in the Office of 

Science. 

So, I think that it was a very important distinction, when we 

first passed the COMPETES Act, and this was so important, I 

think, to this side of the aisle, that there was, that this would not 

affect the Office of Science, and so, I think that we should continue 

it. 

Since we really haven’t had more than just the initial granting 

of the ARPA–E technology, or the groups that are going to be doing 

something under ARPA–E. 

Chairman BAIRD. Gentlelady yield? 

Ms. BIGGERT. Yes, I will yield. 

Mr. INGLIS. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. And to the chairman, I would say, point out that actually, that is what we would 

be concerned, is things get so exciting at ARPA–E that you forget 

about Office of Science. 

In other words, it is quite possible for things to get very exciting 

for this quarter. And so, quarterly profits, quarterly whatever. This 

quarter becomes very exciting. Meanwhile, money goes toward that 

excitement, and the basic research that is a role, I believe, of the 

Federal Government, because nobody else is going to spend money 

on that. It is overlooked. That is exactly what we are concerned 

about, actually, is things getting too exciting at ARPA–E. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
257 

We want them to be exciting, but we want to make sure that we 

stay excited about really off the beaten path research that may 

turn out to be really game changing in the basic research area. So, 

it is, we are back to that fundamental question that we have been 

discussing all day, I believe. 

It is the gentlelady’s time. Do you want to— 

Ms. BIGGERT. Yes. Yes. 

Mr. INGLIS. And thank you to the gentlelady for yielding. 

Ms. BIGGERT. I will yield back. 

Chairman BAIRD. I recognize myself for five minutes to ask counsel. Could you share with us the current amount of authorization 

for the Office of Basic Science, vis-a-vis the current year for ARPA– 

E, and then the out year numbers? 

COUNSEL. Sorry, the current year authorization for the DOE Office of Science, and the current authorization for ARPA–E? 

Chairman BAIRD. Correct. Not including the ARRA funds. We 

will get there. 

COUNSEL. Office of Science is authorized for $5.8 billion for 2010. 

ARPA–E, right now, I believe, is in such sums. 

Chairman BAIRD. What is the actual expenditure? Again, ARRA 

is a bit of a contaminant there. 

COUNSEL. $4.9 billion for Financial Year 2010 appropriated for 

Office of Science. 

Chairman BAIRD. Okay. So, in the out years, as of 2015, what is 

the Office of Science authorization in this legislation proposed to 

you? I think it is $8 billion something. 

COUNSEL. $8.1 billion. 

Chairman BAIRD. And what would ARPA–E be? 

COUNSEL. In 2015, would be $1 billion, I think. Would be $1 billion, I believe. 

Chairman BAIRD. So, the reason I ask those, I thank counsel for 

that. The reason I ask those is, we are still seeing a rather generous growth in basic science, under the Office of Science, under 

this bill, right? I mean, it is looking, we are looking at $2 billion 

increase during that time period. 

Now, yes, there is enthusiasm for ARPA–E, but it is not at the 

neglect or expense of science. It is maintaining a core growth in 

science, but at the same time, allowing ARPA–E to increase. And 

the only other thing I would say on this is, you know, over the 12 

years I have been here, it has been a pastime, I think, of some of 

the colleagues on the Minority side, particularly, to do reverse earmarking of science projects. And the game is often to look at a 

rather esoteric branch of science and say, well, we will take money 

from this and put it toward something that has appeal. 

From the taxpayer’s perspective, not to take anything away from 

the Office of Basic Research, but I think from the taxpayer’s perspective, at a time of record, near-record unemployment, dependence on foreign oil, increasing energy prices, et cetera et cetera, I 

think many of the taxpayers would say darn straight, I want some 

of this money, a generous portion of this money, to go towards 

things that fairly in the near future, I can actually see a tangible 

benefit from. 

Not to diminish the importance of basic research, but certainly, 

I think, the taxpayers in my districts are saying let us get some 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
258 

jobs. Let us get some things that lower our energy costs. Let us get 

some things that make us economically competitive. 

The basic research still grows in this, in this legislation. I want 

to underscore that. But ARPA–E would grow, has the authority 

under this to grow generously. So, with that, I would yield back. 

Mr. INGLIS. Mr. Chairman, would you yield? 

Chairman BAIRD. Be happy to. 

Mr. INGLIS. My amendment speaks of appropriations, not authorization. So, the concern is, I agree with you that based on the numbers we just ran through, the appropriations are, the authorizations are generous. 

It is just a question about whether the appropriations fall short 

of that authorization is what I am trying to do is preserve the Office of Science through the appropriations. 

Chairman BAIRD. Reclaiming. I would, I recognize and respect 

that, but that, to me, is a further argument. This committee believes in the importance of ARPA–E. And I personally believe it. I 

think the evidence is compelling, that I don’t want to then make 

ARPA–E’s position dependent on an appropriator’s decision on 

basic science. 

I think we want to continue to defend our prerogative here as far 

as authorization, rather than making, giving them a way, I mean, 

we are then in a paradoxical position of having to plead with them 

to raise, if we want to deal with fiscal issues, to then say we are 

going to plead with one entity to raise one fund, so that another 

fund can go up. It is not a position I, as a supplicant to the appropriators, which we are too much anyway, I don’t want to do that. 

But I would be happy to yield. I only have 30 seconds left. I will 

yield to Mr. Bartlett, Dr. Bartlett, then Ms. Biggert, or I will recognize Ms. Biggert, if Dr. Bartlett— 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you. When considering the tensions implicit in this amendment, I am reminded of the New Testament 

statement: ‘‘This ought you to have done, and not to have left the 

other undone.’’ I am a huge supporter of basic research, but you 

know, considering the priorities here, we find 10 billion barrels of 

oil, and we heave a sigh of relief, gee, we don’t need to worry anymore, do we? That lasts the world 120 days. Big deal. 

So, you know, carrying on to Animal Farm, all animals are 

equal, but some are more equal than others. I think that energy 

research is more equal than others. So, I hope we don’t call a roll 

call vote on this, because I am going to be conflicted. I am not 

going to vote against my Ranking Member, but I just, you know, 

I just think that if you are going to favor one side of this equation, 

it needs to be ARPA–E, because I think that is a bigger challenge 

than any other challenge in our society today. Thank you. 

Chairman BAIRD. Thanks, Dr. Bartlett. I always welcome some 

Biblical scripture that has applied relevance to the Committee. Dr. 

Ehlers often provides that with us, for us. Ms. Biggert. 

Ms. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think that we are looking at the amendment. It is just to make 

sure that the Office of Science is, the money is appropriated and 

adjusted for inflation, but really, only if the amount exceeds the 

previous fiscal year, then there is no cap on what ARPA–E can be. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
259 

I think it is just a check, to make sure that both of these are funded. 

The other thing, we should look at some time, there is something 

in this legislation that allows earmarks to be taken out of the Office of Science. I have never been able to figure out why that is 

true, but every year, there are MRIs that come out of the Office 

of Science, because there is a biotech clause in there. And I think 

that this is a way that, you know, that we could protect more the 

Office of Science by doing this, and maybe we could do something 

by the final decision on this bill. 

I mean, I think we should, you know, look at that, rather than 

just making sure that the Office of Science is funded. Yield back. 

Chairman BAIRD. I, given, I thank the gentlelady, and I would 

be happy to discuss with the gentlelady the issue of earmarks, and 

if there is a need to address that in this, I would much prefer that 

we put it in, rather than giving Mr. Flake yet another opportunity 

to do so on the floor. 

Mr. GORDON. Would the gentleman yield? 

Chairman BAIRD. I would be happy to recognize the chair. 

Mr. GORDON. Ms. Biggert raised that issue with me on the floor 

yesterday. I was surprised to hear it. We have already started the 

process of looking into that, and we all would like to see it corrected. 

Chairman BAIRD. Thank the gentlelady for calling our attention 

to that. 

Is there further discussion on the amendment? 

If not, then the vote occurs on the amendment. Those in favor 

will say aye. Those opposed, no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the 

nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. 

In the opinion of the chair, Mr. Ehlers needs a hearing aid. 

There are times when there are exceptions to that auditory rule, 

I have noticed, on the floor, particularly. 

The thirteenth amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Johnson. Ms. Johnson, are 

you ready to proceed with your amendment? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at 

the desk. 

Chairman BAIRD. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 104, amendment to the committee print, offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas. 

Chairman BAIRD. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the 

reading. Without objection, so ordered, and I recognize the 

gentlelady for five minutes to explain her amendment. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 

Member. As newer tools are revolutionizing our energy sector, we 

will be creating an entirely new green economy with jobs for workers who have been displaced over the years. Ensuring that the people in low income communities and people of color are prepared for 

this transition is critical, not just for these citizens, but also, for 

our country. 

My amendment specifies for one award, to be granted to an 

HBCU or 1890 Land Grant institution, a Hispanic serving institution or a PBI or a tribal college. Together, these are hundreds of 

universities, which represent every corner of our Nation. My 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
260 

amendment also gives special consideration to at least three of 

these universities, one of each category. 

I would like to thank my good friends and colleagues, Representative Bobby Rush and Representative G. K. Butterfield, for their 

hard work on this language, which has broad tripartisan support. 

The development of Green Energy Centers of Excellence at historically black colleges and universities, Hispanic serving institutions, and tribal colleges, to research and develop new green technologies, as well as train implementers in the deployment of green 

innovation is a move toward parity in a growing clean energy economy. 

These universities maintain unique relationships with communities of color, and we should implement their ability to educate 

these communities on the opportunities in green industries, and 

the techniques needed to succeed in a larger energy strategy. 

Historically, most historically black colleges and universities, and 

other minority serving institutions do not have the same endowments, funding, grant-writing capabilities, and luxuries other universities have. Despite these challenges, HBCUs have managed to 

graduate students in STEM fields at a higher rate than most traditional universities. 

The faction of college age population ages represented by minorities is expected to grow to 55 percent in 2050. However, minorities 

still face barriers pursuing STEM careers. The United States will 

not be able to produce enough scientists and engineers in future 

years who do not address these issues now. 

The proportion of STEM master’s degrees earned by minorities 

is much lower than the representation of minorities within the U.S. 

population. In order to keep America competitive in future years, 

we do have some work to do. The bills for our consideration today 

focus on particular weaknesses in our national scientific enterprise. 

I, and many of our colleagues from the Tri-Caucus and the Diversity and Innovation Caucus, believe this amendment will strengthen the intent of this legislation. 

As legislators, we have seen the statistics showing minorities are 

falling behind the rest of the pack in sciences. We are now interested in policy directions to correct these statistics. 

I ask my colleagues on this committee to support this amendment, to increase diversity in our growing clean energy economy. 

Mr. Chairman, I have never attended a historically black university, nor a minority serving university, but I know what it means 

to this society for them to be operating. I have seen far too many 

successes coming from these universities to ignore them. Many of 

them are first generation students. Many of them are very nervous, 

and cannot really survive on a majority campus, because they have 

not been accustomed to that environment. 

So, I would please ask the Committee to help to get these students up to par. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, and I yield 

back the remainder of the time. 

Chairman BAIRD. Is there further discussion on the amendment? 

Mr. Inglis. 

Mr. INGLIS. Mr. Chairman, I certainly am sympathetic to the 

idea of special consideration, the challenge here is we only start out 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
261 

with three Hubs, so if we are going to give special consideration to 

three Hubs, then it pretty quickly becomes sort of a suggested 

number, and it is the entire program. 

So, it seems to me that the wise thing to do is just take the number out. If the gentlelady would just take out the, at least three 

awards, does not state a number, but suggests special consideration, I think that would be acceptable. It is just a special consideration, but when you establish a number, especially if it is 100 percent of the number of Hubs, that seems problematic. 

And so, thank the— 

Chairman BAIRD. Would the gentleman yield back? 

Mr. INGLIS. I yield back. 

Chairman BAIRD. Mr. Garamendi. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I think the Hubs are not necessarily on one 

campus. I think they can be multiple campuses, or locations. I will 

use the word campus in its broadest sense. It might be a research 

laboratory, it might be a university. 

But if it is a Hub, and I agree with the three issue. I think you 

are correct about that. But it may be that the, that instead of the 

Hub being a single university campus, it may be that one or more 

of the serving institutions may be part of one or more Hubs. And 

I think we just have a little language issue here, about what we 

are actually trying to accomplish. And we are trying to spread the 

Hubs out to these historic serving campuses, but not only on that 

campus. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. If the gentleman would yield. Mr. Chairman, I think 

that Mr. Garamendi describes that precisely the way that it would 

work. 

We worked on similar language during the debate with ACES, if 

the Members will recall, to allow for these partnerships to take 

place as well, and so, although the target wouldn’t be those campuses, it would be to make sure that these campuses would be included in the discussion, and in coming up with the solutions necessary to make sure that they are part of the solution. 

Chairman BAIRD. Mr. Garamendi, do you yield back? 

Mr. GARAMENDI. If I, if the Chair can inquire of counsel. 

Chairman BAIRD. I am a strong advocate of making sure we expand opportunities for historically black colleges and other minority and women serving institutions, but I have a question about 

this, and help walk me through it. My understanding of the Hubs 

is that there is intended to be some degree of geographical centrality and coordination. 

In other words, this is not a dispersed electronic collaboration, 

but the idea is analogous to the Bell Labs model. The idea is to put 

researchers focused on a common focus, specific goal, together in 

one area, to hammer away at that goal, in an Apollo-like or Manhattan-like or Bell Labs-like model. Is that accurate? 

COUNSEL. That is accurate, where practicable. 

Chairman BAIRD. The challenge I have is, then, comparable to 

Mr. Inglis? If that is the case, and my understanding is there is 

a relatively small number of Hubs to be created. I think Secretary 

Chu looked at eight proposals over some period of time. 

How many hubs do we envision being created? 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
262 

COUNSEL. The legislation is currently silent on the number of 

Hubs to be created. For right now, three are appropriated, and one 

is requested for Financial Year 2011. So, there is— 

Chairman BAIRD. But there is, okay, so three are appropriated, 

one is requested. There are a fairly small number. 

COUNSEL. An additional is requested for Financial Year 2011. 

Chairman BAIRD. Okay. But there is, even if we set aside the 

numbers, there is also some realistic, practical constraints, in 

terms of how much funding is to be given to these. 

COUNSEL. Yes, the Administration indicated in the Financial 

Year 2010 budget that eight would be, would ultimately be created. 

The funding levels in the authorization of appropriation envisions eight, ultimately, being created. However, the number in the 

bill, the number of Hubs in the bill is not specified. 

Chairman BAIRD. My problem here is this. I mean, there are, if 

we accept this premise that a Hub is meant to be a geographically 

centralized location, and given a relatively constrained number of 

potential Hubs to be created, it seems to be that we are very particular, I don’t have a map off the top of my head, of these particular, of the distribution of these particular institutions that qualify. 

Maybe someone can enlighten me. Are we not de facto saying 

that the Hubs can only go to certain places and not to others? Mr. 

Tonko— 

Mr. GORDON. If the Chairman would yield. 

I think, again, the premise we all agree with is that there should 

be an outreach effort here. I guess what I would say is probably 

the thing to do is maybe to agree to the amendment, and then, 

work with Ms. Johnson between now and the Full Committee, to 

see if there should be, you know, any kind of changes, in terms of 

numerical. 

But at least, I think we all agree that there should be this concept of a sensitivity to those institutions. 

Chairman BAIRD. Yeah, reclaiming my time. The challenge, and 

I will get to Mr. Tonko in just a moment. The challenge I face is, 

it is not, I don’t think the issue is just numerical. 

I think the issue is the fundamental core concept of what constitutes a Hub, and what constitutes, I am lacking the word. 

Mr. GORDON. I think it is frontier. 

Chairman BAIRD. Consortia. So, the point being, it would be one 

thing if you say we want collaboration, because we want to encourage involvement, but you pick a university and say, you can collaborate from afar. I mean, if the best applicants for the job are located there, terrific, fantastic. 

But to say that, it seems to be that effective, we are ruling out 

a very, we are effectively ruling out a very large portion of the 

country. 

Mr. Tonko. 

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I believe the vision here is to model after 

those existing success stories, which then defines the Hubs as single focus, with multi-discipline, multi-investigator, multi-institution. So, multi-institution, for a single Hub, means the incorporation of a number of those concepts, I think, where you could then, 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
263 

in the spirit of the Congresswoman’s amendment, bring in her intention. 

They are, by design, supposed to have a central location, a core, 

grounded central location, but it is still multi-institutional. 

Chairman BAIRD. Reclaiming my time. I think that is correct. My 

concern is, my understanding of the premise of the Hubs: Bell Labs 

was not—my understanding, and I can’t speak for the Secretary, 

but maybe counsel can advise. If you look at Apollo, if you look at 

the Manhattan Project, now yes, there were various areas of the 

country that worked together. Mr. Luja ́n knows this better, but coincidentally, my father was at school at Los Alamos Boys School, 

and the Federal Government came by and said kids, you have got 

to leave. There is something special going to happen here. 

And the premise was, that he had asthma, which is why he was 

out there. So, the premise was that we are going to get all these 

really bright people together in one place, so that you go across a 

hall, work on the chalkboard, and solve the problem. Now, that was 

pre-Internet days, et cetera, but the idea was we are going to put 

everybody together, so they are able to hammer away at this one 

objective together, physically and proximally. 

And I understand, my understanding is that is part of what this 

Hub thing is about. And so, my concern, then, is if we then, we are 

basically saying many parts of the country can’t actually compete, 

that is my concern. And I am really worried about this. Though I 

am passionate about involving minorities in this issue. 

My time has expired, but did counsel want to comment on this? 

COUNSEL.—to get a Hub. And then, Hubs are ideally located 

under one roof, but that does not preclude that other participants 

outside of this one centralized location can participate. 

Chairman BAIRD. Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Chairman BAIRD. Mr. Garamendi. Actually, I will recognize Mr. 

Garamendi, and then get back to Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, he described that correctly. What— 

that—this has been on much discussion, and has already passed 

the House on another bill, that has stopped in the Senate. 

Now, we know that these Hubs will be located around the country. There are concentrations of these sorts of black colleges in the 

South. There are concentrations of the participating Indians are in 

the West. And the majority of the concentrations of Hispanics, for 

the most part, are in the Southwest. 

And there will be consortiums around these areas. This just 

means that, to try to include them in that consortium. And it started out, in the original language, having lots of them, but we decided that if we do it by consortium, at least one historically black 

college, at least one Hispanic serving institution, and at least one 

Indian serving institution, could be included geographically within 

a Hub. 

Mr. GORDON. Would the gentlelady yield? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Sure. 

Mr. GORDON. I think what we have here is, the Hub concept is 

geographic, as Chairman Baird said. It is trying to get people there 

working together, but as a practical matter, there is no place in the 

United States where everybody is already there. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
264 

And so, if you were going to have a Solar Hub, for example, it 

may very well go to the University of Arizona, but if you have a 

specialist at Columbia University, or another one at Berkeley, another one at Fisk, then, they might take sabbaticals and relocate 

there. 

Chairman BAIRD. Is it, if I may, is it the Chairman’s belief that 

that would fit as part of the, qualifying as part of the member of 

the consortia, if faculty. 

Mr. GORDON. That would be my understanding, yes. In other 

words, you could have Fisk University participate, either at, they 

could be the Hub there, you know, there at their campus or in that 

area, or they could be a part of something going on at Berkeley, 

California. 

So, they would partner, but again, no single area would have a 

monopoly on all of the best personnel. Now, and, but, and what we 

have here, I will just go a little bit further, as Ms. Johnson said, 

this basically is the language that passed on an Energy and Commerce bill that had a larger number of Hubs. 

And so, we are sort of, to some extent, we are taking this compromise language from one bill and putting it somewhere else. I 

think it probably is appropriate, but it can also have more discussion, I think, between now and our final— 

Chairman BAIRD. The gentleman’s point is well taken. I just, and 

I note that, for the record, that Ms. Johnson was nodding when we 

noted, the premise is not necessarily that the location of the Hub 

must be determined geographically by the location of said institution. Their participation in the process, and the focus of the Hub, 

is what matters. So, that there could be an inclusiveness in that, 

but not necessarily a de facto mandate that there only be certain 

geographical. With that clarification, I am much more comfortable 

with this, and appreciate the indulgence. 

Mr. INGLIS. Would the gentleman yield, or whose time is it? 

Chairman BAIRD. I will recognize the gentleman. 

Mr. INGLIS. Well, I was just, I think that if we are going to discuss it between now and Full Committee, the better approach is to 

not include this now. To include it now, with such question about 

it, seems unwise. 

It seems wiser to wait until the Full Committee, and work out 

the language, because at this point, we are talking about a specific 

number, on an amendment that doesn’t seem like it fits with the 

overall bill. 

And so, I don’t know why we would want, as a committee, subcommittee, to lock ourselves into a three number, and then need 

to change that at Full Committee. Why don’t we just leave it out 

now, and discuss it as we move toward the Full Committee? 

And I would signal to you that, at least from my perspective, the 

best way to do that is to have no numerical indication there, because it is better to say special preference or special consideration 

be given, without establishing a number. Because the numbers are 

all moving around here. And it would, it seems unwise to set a specific number. 

Ms. JOHNSON. May I just comment on that? 

Mr. INGLIS. Would be happy to yield. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
265 

Ms. JOHNSON. Mr. Inglis, I don’t mind waiting until we get to the 

Full Committee. But the intent of this language was to make sure 

that only, not to put these institutions in a lot of competition with 

each other, but to make an opportunity where each category can 

have an opportunity to participate. 

And that is really what we came down to. If you, I don’t know 

if you remember, the original language had like 15 and 16, and but 

it was pulled down, as we, as the Tri-Caucus discussed it, and the 

Innovation Caucus discussed it, we put it where there could be an 

opportunity for one from each general location, I mean, description 

to participate, and not make it look as if they had to compete 

among each other. That is why three was put there. 

Chairman BAIRD. I appreciate the clarification. One of the things 

we have done today at several points is agreed to work on language 

in the interim, and not necessarily consider. We did this with 

amendments prior, I think from both sides, if I am not mistaken, 

where we have said look, we will, we may pass this now, but we 

are still going to revisit the language. 

And it sounds to me, like, that we are getting, that we are of a 

common purpose here, and we want to revisit this. And again, the 

Chairman has raised the point that there are some concurrency 

with language passed by other committees, that we want to be able 

to discuss those. 

My understanding is that this language is concurrent with language already in existence, the letter of this language. Is that 

right? Can I refer to counsel, that language already exists? 

COUNSEL. This is consistent with language that was in what is 

known as the Waxman-Markey bill, in the House-passed version. 

Chairman BAIRD. Okay. Well, since that is not going anywhere, 

we might want to revisit. That is not, that is hardly written in 

stone, unless it is some kind of soapstone. 

What I think, at this point, we have heard the points. My point 

really, facetiousness and silliness aside, we are not bound by that. 

It is not existing law, and it is up to question whether it will become that. 

But my encouragement would be that we pass, we move to the 

vote on the amendment, but with an agreement that we get together and discuss some of these points, and that we may want to 

do it, I would have to ask the Chairman, because he will be managing the full bill, that we would discuss some of the finer points 

between now and then. Is that— 

Mr. GORDON. It is Ms. Johnson’s amendment, but I will certainly, 

would feel comfortable with that. 

Chairman BAIRD. Is the gentlelady, in other words, willing to put 

this amendment up for a vote, as is, and, but if it is to pass, that 

we would also have some further discussion, to clarify some of 

these points? 

Mr. Inglis, did you have a final comment before the roll call? 

Mr. INGLIS. If that is where we are headed, then I want to offer 

a second degree amendment to the amendment. 

Chairman BAIRD. The gentleman will state his amendment. So, 

is there an amendment at the desk? 

Mr. INGLIS. Not yet. Get it down to the desk. 

Chairman BAIRD. So, okay, let us write something down. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
266 

Mr. INGLIS. It is scratching out the first, to the first comma. 

Lines 1 and 2. 

Chairman BAIRD. Read the omitted line and then, we will hand 

the written copy to counsel. 

Mr. INGLIS. It just takes out the words, ‘‘For at least three 

awards to consortia under this section,’’ so it would, and then, it 

would make an initial cap on ‘‘the’’ for ‘‘The Secretary.’’ So, it just 

takes out one. 

Chairman BAIRD. Can we, can counsel photocopy that and make 

it available to the Members, please? 

Mr. INGLIS. It takes out the first ten words. 

Chairman BAIRD. And it is what page, again, Mr. Inglis, so Members can look in their folders? 

Mr. INGLIS. It is page 1 of Ms. Johnson’s— 

Chairman BAIRD. Oh, sorry, you are just amending her amendment, sorry. 

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, if you, it might, having a little subconference here. I think that some Members on this side would prefer, rather than get into this ad hoc amending right now, that we 

just not go forward with this amendment, and try to look at it in 

a more holistic way, rather than, again, try to get down to fine language through pieces of paper back and forth. 

If that would be, again, as Ms. Johnson is the, would have to do 

that. 

Chairman BAIRD. So, we would presumably, counsel, have to ask 

Mr. Inglis to withdraw his amendment to Ms. Johnson’s amendment, and then, she would withdraw her amendment, or if he, if 

she just withdraws her amendment, that obviates his withdrawal, 

is that correct? 

So, is that the way the gentlelady wishes to proceed? Ms. Johnson. Yes, so if you withdraw your amendment, then it obviates his 

need to withdraw it. So, does the gentlelady wish to withdraw her 

amendment? Then that, then, takes care of his amendment to your 

amendment, because there is nothing to amend. If we get much 

more complex, I will be lost. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yeah. Well, what I would like to is adopt the language and be open for looking at it a second time in Full Committee. 

The amendment that he is offering to this amendment actually 

guts it, after lots of deliberation and working with a number of people outside this committee. 

So, I do have some concern about gutting it before we agree to 

look at it in Full Committee. I would rather have it adopted as it 

is, and leave it for review when we get there. 

Perhaps we can get even more background as to how this was 

arrived. 

Chairman BAIRD. So, the gentlelady does not wish to withdraw 

her amendment, is what I am hearing. The gentleman is entitled 

to offer his amendment if he so chooses. 

And do you have an amendment at the desk? 

Mr. INGLIS. Yeah, I want to continue with the amendment. 

Chairman BAIRD. The clerk will report the amendment to the 

amendment. 

The CLERK. Does everyone have a copy of the amendment? 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
267 

Chairman BAIRD. I thought it had been distributed. Has it? 

Mr. INGLIS. No. 

Chairman BAIRD. Oh, I am sorry. I apologize. I thought I saw 

staff passing something out. My apologies. We will wait until we 

receive that amendment. I am being instructed by counsel that 

technically, this would qualify as a substitute to Ms. Johnson’s 

amendment, because you are not adding language. We are replacing the whole legislation with the existing text of Ms. Johnson’s 

minus those stricken words. 

Ms. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BAIRD. Yes, Ms. Biggert. 

Ms. BIGGERT. Since this is getting more and more complicated, 

it appears to me that, how long have we spent on this now, about 

45 minutes, it seems like, that I would recommend that we, you 

know, let this go, and come back for the final. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Why don’t we vote on the substitute? 

Chairman BAIRD. Well, we will, Ms.—if that is dependent on the 

wishes of Mr. Inglis, who is offering the substitute, but we have to 

get the text to the Members. Unless Mr. Inglis wishes to withdraw 

that, we would have to get the text to the Members before we vote 

on the substitute. So, we are awaiting that, and if that should be 

pretty quickly available to us. Unless Mr. Inglis wishes to change 

his position. 

You have the text here. It is up to Mr. Inglis. If he wants to proceed, we will distribute the amendment, and call a vote on the 

amendment in the nature of a substitute. 

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that he is not 

changing his position, just waiting to do it until a later time. 

Chairman BAIRD. That is dependent on Mr. Inglis. 

Mr. INGLIS. You know, I liked the Chairman’s suggestion, that 

we just wait until Full Committee on this. The gentlelady from 

Texas is not agreeable to that position. So, therefore, I am maintaining my position, which is it is not wise to set in stone a number, in this subcommittee, waiting for moving to full committee. 

But I would very much appreciate the Chairman’s suggestion, 

that we agree to discuss this between here and Full Committee, in 

which case, I would be happy to withdraw the amendment. 

Chairman BAIRD. I would like the staff to distribute Mr. Inglis’ 

proposal, so people know what we are talking about here. Distribution does not prejudge whether we will actually take action on it, 

but at least Members have it before them. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BAIRD. Yes, Mr. Bartlett. 

Mr. BARTLETT. I would concur with the Chairman of the Full 

Committee’s concern. One way of interpreting this amendment is, 

if we are going to have, and the words ‘‘at least three awards to 

consortia,’’ and if we are going to have three Hubs, you could interpret this that all three Hubs are going to go to these minorities. 

And I am sure that is not her intent. 

Ms. JOHNSON. No. That is not what the amendment says. 

Mr. BARTLETT. But obviously, the amendment needs more work, 

so that it wouldn’t be confusing. Wouldn’t you agree? 

Chairman BAIRD. It is not for me to agree. Did anyone wish to 

respond to Mr. Bartlett’s point? Mr. Luja ́n. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
268 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Mr. Chairman, what the amendment simply does, it 

says that if it is Yale, MIT, or Pitt that gets the award, that they 

just have to have a partnership with one of these qualifying institutions to be able to do this wonderful work. 

It is not saying that this has to go a specific institution that is 

of one of these classifications. And that is simply what it says. And 

so, it is simply saying that these various minority serving institutions will be included as part of this discussion. 

Mr. GORDON. If the gentleman would yield. It doesn’t really say 

that. I mean, it says they should be given consideration. It doesn’t 

say that you are mandated to have one. So, that should be clear. 

It says, ‘‘the Secretary shall give special consideration to applicants in which one or more of these institutions,’’ and it goes on, 

so it doesn’t mandate you. You do not have to have one of these. 

You know, but if you, I guess, if you did, if there was a point score 

or something of this nature, it would give you additional points, but 

it doesn’t make you. 

Chairman BAIRD. All other things being equal, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. INGLIS. Except it says three, in which case, there is a number. 

Mr. GORDON. Well, because there is three different groups. 

Mr. INGLIS. Yeah, but there is, but it establishes a number. It is 

three. 

Mr. BARTLETT. It says at least three awards. So, the language is 

conflicting. It is not consistent. 

Mr. GORDON. Well, I think it is because there are, it is, there are 

three Hubs that are currently set up. So, all three. 

Mr. INGLIS. Well, it is open to different interpretation. 

Chairman BAIRD. So, all three of the ones that are currently set 

up, but therefore— 

Mr. GORDON. Or excuse me, not set up, but rather, appropriated 

for. 

Mr. INGLIS. But Mr. Luja ́n is correct, all three must have a partner, which would be a 100 percent. 

Chairman BAIRD. Let me ask the counsel to give us an opinion 

on this, because my reading is more closely aligned to Chairman 

Gordon’s reading, that it is, that the letter of the law, or the letter 

of the proposed amendment, is not saying that all three must have 

a partner. 

My reading is that for at least three of the awards, consideration 

must be given, but that does not mandate, consideration does not 

mandate selection for an award. 

COUNSEL. That is counsel’s interpretation as well. 

Chairman BAIRD. Does that clarify? 

Mr. INGLIS. Well, Mr. Chairman, the thing that is really odd 

about that is, wouldn’t you want to have 100 percent consideration? 

Why would we want to have three consideration, if that is consideration? I mean, I should think that we would want 100 percent consideration. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Mr. Chairman, does that mean that we should say 

for all appropriated? 

Mr. INGLIS. Actually, that is what my amendment does, is it 

takes out the three, in which case 100 percent have consideration. 

Yes, I would be happy to add the words, something like in all 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
269 

cases, the Secretary should give consideration. That would be a 

good idea. 

Chairman BAIRD. Let me ask the opinion of counsel. Would the 

addition of the 100 percent, or is the absence of the three not implicit? Does that not contain within the assumption of 100 percent? 

So, in other words, rather than amending his amendment, he has 

already accomplished, I think. 

COUNSEL. It is our interpretation, by striking the language Mr. 

Inglis has asked to strike, the Secretary shall give special consideration to all applications. 

Chairman BAIRD. And again— 

COUNSEL. In which one or more of the institutions, under subsection (B)(1)(a), are 1890 Land Grant institutions, et cetera. 

Chairman BAIRD. And then, again, for purposes of clarification 

again, to echo Chairman Gordon’s point. Special consideration does 

not mandate that the selection include that the ultimate selection 

includes said institutions, merely that in the process of reaching 

that determination, they get consideration, those which reach out. 

So, it is advantageous for an applicant to seek such consideration, but it is not prescriptive about whether you will or will not 

get it. 

COUNSEL. It would be speculative for counsel to say whether it 

is advantageous or not. 

Chairman BAIRD. Right. Okay. Fair enough. But our intent here, 

the letter of the language, with Mr. Inglis’ modification, there is for 

clarification to my colleagues, and according to counsel here, is not 

saying that the ultimate selection must have one of the designated 

institutions, merely that special consideration must be given to 

such institutions in the application process. 

COUNSEL. That is correct. 

Chairman BAIRD. Correct. Is that, Mr. Garamendi? 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank you for the clarification. We are getting 

closer and closer, and perhaps, we are getting a little further away 

from a solution here. 

Part of the problem is that the specific language in the rest of 

the bill speaks to the physical location, which was the issue that 

the chairman brought up at the outset. 

I think we need to be really cautious here about the way in 

which all of this comes together. I think it is very clear where the 

Committee wants to go, which really reflects what Mr. Luja ́n said, 

is that, as part of a consortium, these institutions should be given 

Let me restate that. In an application for a Hub, a consortium that 

includes these institutions should be given special consideration. 

The problem lies in the other sections of the bill, which speak to 

a physical location. And in that regard, when you combine these 

two things, we get a complexity. And I think we need to do a little 

bit more wordsmithing here, so that we don’t direct the physical location to a place where it may not be appropriate, not because of 

the quality of an institution, but rather, because of what the institution may have available in resources for that particular Hub. 

A little more wordsmithing, and we will get there. Whether we 

do it as a full committee or not is a question that has been raised 

by several, and I don’t have an answer to that, but I don’t think 

we are home yet. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
270 

Chairman BAIRD. Other comment, Mr. Luja ́n. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Mr. Chairman, along the lines of Mr. Inglis’ amendment, I would ask unanimous consent to carry out what I believe 

the intent of this is, to add the word ‘‘all’’ on line 3, after the word 

‘‘to,’’ so that it would read ‘‘the Secretary shall give special consideration to all applications in which one or more of the institutions 

under subsection,’’ as the language goes on. 

Chairman BAIRD. I am sorry, Mr. Luja ́n. I, first of all, I think we 

would probably need, and I will ask counsel, we would probably 

need that in writing, rather than you see, I don’t know, but I didn’t 

see, I, as you read it, I didn’t hear the change. Can you say it 

again? But I think we— 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. On line 3, after the word ‘‘to.’’ 

Chairman BAIRD. Oh, I see. I see. I got it. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Add the word ‘‘all’’ before applications. Because it is 

my understanding that this should be given consideration for all 

applications, and I think that clarifies that we want to give this for 

all applications. 

Chairman BAIRD. No. I will ask counsel to opine about that. 

COUNSEL. Our interpretation is that would change the meaning 

of this introduction, which would, to say instead of ‘‘all awards,’’ to 

say ‘‘all applicants,’’ would mean something different, so— 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Mr. Chairman, if I could seek clarification. It is not 

‘‘applicant.’’ It is ‘‘applications.’’ 

COUNSEL. I mean ‘‘applications,’’ so ‘‘all applications.’’ 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. So, the applications. So, how is that different than 

what we are doing here by simply saying the Secretary shall give 

special consideration to applications? Isn’t applications, on all applications? Is there a difference between when you describe applications, that it only means a portion of the applications, instead of 

all the applications? 

Chairman BAIRD. If the Chair can offer an opinion here at this 

point. 

Mr. GORDON. I think if the Chair would yield to Ms. Johnson. 

Chairman BAIRD. Yes, Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. What I don’t want to do is put 

a lot of language in here that makes it more vulnerable for defeat, 

which I think that is the way we are probably headed. 

In view of that, I would like to ask that it be postponed, and ask 

Mr. Inglis if he would work with us between now and Full Committee, on some language that he, perhaps he can agree with. I 

don’t expect him to agree with too much. 

Mr. INGLIS. I think, I accept that suggestion. I think we can work 

together on that. I think it is the wisdom of the Chairman down 

there that suggested that about 20 minutes ago. 

Ms. JOHNSON. I know, but you kept chugging it. 

Mr. INGLIS. No, actually, I tried to accept the Chairman’s suggestion. 

Chairman BAIRD. I think we have reached a good point, at which 

we can— 

Ms. JOHNSON. Your language is a giant killer. 

Chairman BAIRD. If the gentlelady wishes to withdraw her 

amendment, pending further discussion, and with the gentlelady’s 

withdrawal, the chair would— 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
271 

Mr. GORDON. Or delay might be a better term. 

Chairman BAIRD. Or if she will delay her amendment until— 

Mr. GORDON. Withdraw it now until later. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Postpone the consideration. 

Mr. GORDON. Until the Full Committee. 

Chairman BAIRD. Okay. That is fine. Delay consideration until 

Full Committee, but with an agreement, collegial agreement to 

work on this, with the advice of counsel. I think that is the point 

we have reached. We are not going to be able to solve this right 

now, and with words. The general sense is, I think there is strong 

agreement. We want to promote active involvement by the institutions designated in this amendment. I think that is there. I share 

with Mr. Garamendi the issue of the complexity of the physical location. So, I will ask of my colleagues to work together on this between now and final consideration by the Full Committee, and 

hope that we can reach some kind of concurrence on this. 

Are there any other amendments that anyone wishes to offer? 

If no, then the vote is on the committee print, as amended. All 

those in favor will say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. I recognize myself. 

Mr. Inglis. 

Mr. INGLIS. Mr. Chairman, if I may. And two other questions of 

counsel, if that is okay. 

Chairman BAIRD. Well, I don’t know. It probably is, just as a 

courtesy I think that train may have left the station, but just let 

us get the questions on the record, so that we can have that for 

consideration in the further deliberations. 

Mr. INGLIS. Okay. So, I thank the Chairman for his indulgence. 

One is, would the Hub model be available to challenges associated 

with transportation technology or fossil fuel efficiency? 

COUNSEL. It is counsel’s interpretation that yes, it would be. 

Mr. INGLIS. Great, and several of the Hub priorities seem to call 

on work ongoing at the Department of Energy. For example, the 

Administration is proposing to fund batteries, an Energy Storage 

Hub in the Financial Year 2011 budget. Similar work is currently 

ongoing at ARPA–E, Energy Frontier Research Centers, and Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. It doesn’t sound like, it 

doesn’t sound responsible to fund the same work in three different 

places, let alone four. 

Are there measures in this bill to prevent duplication of efforts 

at DOE? 

COUNSEL. As the Hubs are defined, we see that there is no duplication. There are intersections, but they do not run parallel to programs that are being done by DOE. 

Mr. INGLIS. So, the—is, I guess our question is, is there anything 

in the bill that prevents that sort of duplication, or— 

COUNSEL. I will refer to page 34, subsection (3), Coordination. 

‘‘The Secretary shall ensure the coordination of and avoid unnecessary duplication of the activities of Hubs, with those of other Department of Energy research entities.’’ 

Mr. INGLIS. So, there is an intent there to avoid that duplication 

that we were just identifying here. 

COUNSEL. There is. 

Mr. INGLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
272 

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you, Mr. Inglis. 

With that, I move that the Subcommittee favorably report the 

Committee print, as amended, to the Full Committee. 

Furthermore, I move that staff be instructed to prepare the Subcommittee report, and make necessary technical and conforming 

changes to the print, in accordance with the recommendations of 

the Subcommittee. 

The question is on the motion to report the print favorably. 

Those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The print is favorably reported. 

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

Members will have two subsequent calendar days in which to 

submit supplemental Minority or additional views on the measure. 

I want to thank the Members, and particularly, also, the staff for 

their diligent work on this, and look forward to final markup. 

This concludes our subcommittee markup. 

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

Appendix: 

COMMITTEE PRINT, SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS, AMENDMENT

ROSTER


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
273 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10aaa.eps
274 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10bbb.eps
275 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10ccc.eps
276 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10ddd.eps
277 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10eee.eps
278 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10fff.eps
279 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10ggg.eps
280 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10hhh.eps
281 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10iii.eps
282 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10jjj.eps
283 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10kkk.eps
284 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10lll.eps
285 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10mmm.eps
286 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10nnn.eps
287 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10ooo.eps
288 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10ppp.eps
289 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10qqq.eps
290 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10rrr.eps
291 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10sss.eps
292 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10ttt.eps
293 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10uuu.eps
294 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10vvv.eps
295 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10www.eps
296 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10xxx.eps
297 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10yyy.eps
298 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10zzz.eps
299 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10azzz.eps
300 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10bzzz.eps
301 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10czzz.eps
302 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10dzzz.eps
303 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10ezzz.eps
304 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10fzzz.eps
305 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10gzzz.eps
306 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10hzzz.eps
307 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10izzz.eps
308 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10jzzz.eps
309 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10kzzz.eps
310 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10lzzz.eps
311 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10mzzz.eps
312 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10nzzz.eps
313 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF

DOE OFFICE OF SCIENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2010 

Title I–Office of Science 

Sec. 101: Short Title 

Gives title of the bill as the ‘‘DOE Office of Science Authorization Act of 2010’’ 

Sec. 102: Definitions 

Provides definitions for ‘‘DEPARTMENT’’, ‘‘DIRECTOR’’, ‘‘OFFICE OF 

SCIENCE’’, and ‘‘SECRETARY’’ 

Sec. 103: Office of Science Activities 

Directs the Secretary of Energy to carry out research, development, demonstration, and commercial application activities in science supporting the missions of the 

Department, including programs on basic energy sciences, biological and environmental research, advanced scientific computing research, fusion energy sciences, 

high energy physics, and nuclear physics. 

Instructs the Department’s Under Secretary for Science to ensure the coordination 

with the other activities of the Department, and support joint activities among the 

Department’s programs. 

Sec. 104: Basic Energy Sciences Program 

Directs the Director of the Office of Science to carry out a program in basic energy 

sciences, including materials sciences and engineering, chemical sciences, biosciences, and geosciences, for the purpose of providing the scientific foundations for 

new energy technologies. 

As part of this program, the Director is instructed to support: 

1) construction and operation of the program’s major user facilities, 

2) competitively awarded energy frontier research centers, and 

3) relevant accelerator research and development activities, in coordination with 

the Office of Science’s High Energy Physics and Nuclear Physics programs. 

Sec. 105: Biological and Environmental Research Program 

Authorizes a program of research, development, demonstration, and commercial 

application in the areas of biological systems science and climate and environmental 

science. 

The biological systems science research includes activities to: 

1) establish a virtual systems biology information framework, 

2) support research on computational biology, 

3) continue the research of the bioenergy research centers, and expand them to 

include biobased products, and 

4) direct the program to develop a synthetic biology plan. 

The climate and environment science research includes activities to: 

1) support the research and coordination of the ecosystem observation 

AmeriFlux Network, 

2) develop a next-generation ecosystem-climate change experiment, 

3) continue research in regional and global climate modeling, and 

4) support integrated assessment research. 

Sec. 106. Advanced Scientific Computing Research Program 

Directs the Director to carry out a research, development, demonstration, and 

commercial application program to advance computational and networking capabilities to analyze, model, simulate, and predict complex phenomena relevant to the development of new energy technologies and the competitiveness of the United States. 

Instructs the Secretary to produce a plan to integrate and leverage the expertise 

and capabilities of the program, as well as other relevant computational programs 

and resources supported by the Federal Government, to advance the missions of the 

Department’s applied energy and energy efficiency programs. 

Instructs the Secretary to, at least 18 months prior to the initiation of construction or installation of any exascale-class computing facility, produce a plan detailing 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
314 

the proposed facility’s cost projections and capabilities to significantly accelerate the 

development of new energy technologies. 

Authorizes research and development activities in applied mathematics, high-end 

computing software development, and next-generation computing architectures and 

platforms to support the missions of the Department. 

Sec. 107. Fusion Energy Research Program 

Directs the Director to carry out a fusion energy sciences research and development program on the scientific and engineering challenges to building a cost-competitive fusion power plant and a fusion power industry in the United States. 

As part of this program, the Director is instructed to: 

1) coordinate and carry out the responsibilities of the United States with respect 

to the ITER international fusion project, 

2) produce a 10-year prioritization plan, 

3) support fusion materials research and development activities in coordination 

with the Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy, 

4) carry out a computational project to advance the capability of fusion researchers to accurately simulate an entire fusion energy system, in collaboration with the Advanced Scientific Computing Research program, and 

In addition, the Secretary is instructed to establish a research and development 

program in inertial fusion for energy applications. 

Sec. 108. High Energy Physics Program 

Directs the Director to carry out a research program on the elementary constituents of matter and energy and the nature of space and time. 

As part of this program, the Director is instructed to support research in the nature of the neutrino, dark energy, and dark matter. 

The Director is also instructed to carry out research and development in advanced 

accelerator concepts and technologies to reduce the necessary scope and cost for the 

next generation of particle accelerators. 

Sec. 109. Nuclear Physics Program 

Directs the Director to carry out a research program, and support relevant facilities, to discover and understand various forms of nuclear matter. 

Director is also instructed to carry out a program for the production of isotopes, 

including the development of techniques to produce isotopes, for research applications. 

Sec. 110. Science Laboratories Infrastructure Program 

Directs the Director to carry out a program to improve the safety, efficiency, and 

mission readiness of infrastructure at Office of Science laboratories. 

Sets the minor construction threshold at Office of Science laboratories at $10 million, to be adjusted by the Secretary in accordance with the Engineering NewsRecord Construction Cost Index, or an appropriate alternative index as determined 

by the Secretary, once every 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Sec. 111. Authorization Of Appropriations 

Authorizes to be appropriated to the Secretary of Energy for the activities of the 

Office of Science: 

(1) $6,221,000,000 for fiscal year 2011 

(2) $6,656,000,000 for fiscal year 2012 

(3) $7,122,000,000 for fiscal year 2013 

(4) $7,621,000,000 for fiscal year 2014 

(5) $8,154,000,000 for fiscal year 2015. 

Title II–Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy 

Sec. 201. Short Title 

ARPA–E Reauthorization Act of 2010 

Sec. 202. ARPA–E Amendments 

Amends section 5012 of the America COMPETES Act of 2007 through the following: 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
315 

(1) in GOALS 

Adds provisions to clarify that ARPA–E will achieve its goals through both fundamental ‘‘and applied’’ science, and through ‘‘promoting the commercial application 

of advanced energy technologies’’. 

(2) in GOALS 

Emphasizes that the R&D on manufacturing processes and technologies should be 

for the domestic manufacturing of novel energy technologies. 

(3) Re-designates subsections (f) as (g), and reorders all subsections thereafter 

(4) Inserts new subsection ‘‘(f) AWARDS’’ to clarify that the Director of ARPA– 

E has the authority to initiate and execute the full range of award instruments of 

the Department, including grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, cash prizes 

and other transactions. ‘‘Other Transactions Authority’’ is a special flexible contracting authority granted to the Department in Section 1007 of the Energy Policy 

Act (EPAct) of 2005. 

(5) in PERSONNEL 

Inserts new paragraph (1) requiring the Director to maintain a staff of qualified 

and experienced legal counsel, contracting personnel, and program directors to serve 

solely within ARPA–E, thus further allowing ARPA–E to remain separate and distinct from the other programs within the Department. 

Makes changes to clarify that program managers (program directors) can direct 

more than one program, and that program managers (program directors) are not required to seek the advice of advisory committees or scientific organizations in making award selections. 

Adds to the list of responsibilities of the program manager (program director) 

identifying cost-sharing opportunities for projects, including through possible exercising of waiver authority by the Secretary under Section 988 of EPAct 2005; and 

identifying ways to transfer successful energy technology development projects to 

the marketplace. 

Clarifies that the term of a program manager (program director) may be ‘‘up to’’ 

3 years. 

Strikes requirement that ARPA–E have at least 70 and not less than 120 personnel. 

Replaces term ‘‘program manager’’ with ‘‘program director’’ to align with current 

practices of ARPA–E. 

Authorizes the Director to hire exceptional scientific, legal, business, and technical 

personnel to serve as Fellows. 

(6) in REPORTS and ROADMAPS 

Shifts deadlines for the Director to provide the Strategic Vision Roadmap from 

2008 and 2011, to 2010 and 2013, respectively. 

(7) in FEDERAL DEMONSTRATION OF TECHNOLOGIES 

Strengthens existing language to require Director to actively seek opportunities 

to demonstrate ARPA–E technologies through procurement by DOE and other Federal agencies. 

(8) Inserts new subsection ‘‘(k) EVENTS’’ authorizing the Director to convene 

events for the purposes of allowing ARPA–E project awardees and finalists to demonstrate technologies to a range of stakeholders, and for other purposes as determined by the Director. 

(9) in ARPA–E EVALUATION 

Changes from ‘‘4 years’’ to ‘‘6 years’’ the time after establishment at which the 

National Academies will evaluate the performance of ARPA–E. 

(10) in ARPA–E EVALUATION 

Adds a requirement that the lessons learned in the National Academies evaluation of ARPA–E shall consider how such lessons may apply to other programs within DOE. 

(11) in FUNDING 

Extends Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal Years 2011 through 2015: 

(A) $300,000,000 for fiscal year 2011 

(B) $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2012 

(C) $700,000,000 for fiscal year 2013 

(D) $900,000,000 for fiscal year 2014 

(E) $1,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2015 

And such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 2016 through 2020. 

Strikes Limitation which made fiscal year 2008 funding for ARPA–E contingent 

upon the Office of Science receiving an increase from 2007. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
316 

Title III–Energy Innovation Hubs 

Sec. 301. Short Title 

Energy Innovation Hubs Authorization Act of 2010 

Sec. 302. Energy Innovation Hubs 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM 

Directs the Secretary to carry out a program to create Energy Innovation Hubs 

that will conduct and support research, development, demonstration and commercial 

application of advanced energy technologies. Where practicable these activities 

should occur in a central location. Each Hub created shall be focused on a particular 

unique advanced energy technology. The Secretary will ensure that the program is 

coordinated with other DOE research entities so as to avoid duplication and shall 

convene representatives from the Hubs, DOE, and any other relevant entities the 

Secretary find appropriate. The Secretary shall also administer each Hub through 

a DOE program with relevant jurisdiction based on a Hub’s technology focus. 

(b) CONSORTIA 

Outlines the requirements that must be met by an applicant consortium in order 

to be eligible to form a Hub. A consortium must be made up of at least two qualifying entities who have created a binding agreement documenting the partnership 

agreement, measures to ensure cost-effective implementation, a proposed budget, 

conflict of interest procedures, an accounting structure, and an external advisory 

committee. The application made by the consortium to the Secretary will be made 

by one of the consortium’s members as a prime applicant. 

(c) SELECTION AND SCHEDULE 

Establishes the process by which the Secretary shall review all consortium applications received. The Secretary shall review all Hub applications received, and consortia grants will be approved through a competitive process. Any grant made to a 

Hub shall be for a period no longer than 5 years and may be renewed through a 

competitive process. 

(d) HUB OPERATIONS 

Details how a Hub, once provided a grant by the Secretary, shall conduct multidisciplinary, collaborative research, development, demonstration, and commercial 

application of advanced energy technologies. A Hub shall encourage collaboration 

and communication and, whenever practicable, conduct its activities at one centralized location. In order to provide greater transparency, the Hub shall develop and 

publish on DOE’s website all proposed plans and programs. In additional to a general duty to monitor project implementation and coordination, the Hub shall submit 

an annual report to the Secretary that summarizes all activities and projects, expenditures, and external advisory committee members. 

The external advisory committee each Hub is required to establish under this section will act as an advisor to the Hub. The membership of each committee shall advise the Hub decision makers on Hub programs and planned activities, but shall not 

have decision making authority. The advisory committee membership should have 

sufficient expertise to provide guidance on scientific, technical, financial, and research management matters. 

This section also requires each Hub to establish procedures to address conflicts 

of interest amongst any employees or consortia designees with decision making authority. These procedures should be consistent with those already established by 

DOE and should disclose any material conflicts of interest. In the event the Secretary discovers a failure to disclose any conflict of interest he may disqualify an 

application or revoke any funds granted to the Hub. 

(e) PROHIBITION ON CONSTRUCTION 

Prohibits any funds granted by the Secretary to a Hub to be used for construction 

of a new building or facility for Hub activities. Furthermore, construction of new 

buildings or facilities shall not be considered as part of the non-Federal share of a 

Hub cost-sharing agreement. 

(f) OVERSIGHT BOARD 

Requires the Secretary to establish within the Department an Oversight Board to 

monitor the Hubs and their activities. 

(g) DEFINITIONS 

Provides the definitions for terms used within the bill, including: Advanced Energy Technology, Hub, Institution of Higher Education, Qualifying Entity, and Secretary. 

(h) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS 

Provides authorizations for each of the fiscal years 2011 through 2015 as follows: 

(1) $110,000,000 for fiscal year 2011; 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
317 

(2) $135,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; 

(3) $195,000,000 for fiscal year 2013; 

(4) $210,000,000 for fiscal year 2014; and 

(5) $210,000,000 for fiscal year 2015. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10a.eps
318 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10b.eps
319 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10c.eps
320 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10d.eps
321 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10e.eps
322 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10f.eps
323 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10g.eps
324 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10h.eps
325 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10i.eps
326 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10j.eps
327 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10k.eps
328 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10l.eps
329 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10m.eps
330 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10n.eps
331 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10o.eps
332 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10p.eps
333 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10q.eps
334 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10u.eps
335 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10r.eps
336 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10s.eps
337 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10t.eps
338 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10uu.eps
339 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10v.eps
340 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10w.eps
341 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10x.eps
342 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu10y.eps
343 

PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARKUP BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE 

EDUCATION ON COMMITTEE PRINT, THE 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2010 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:09 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Daniel Lipinski 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. The Subcommittee will come to order. 

Pursuant to notice, the Subcommittee on Research and Science 

Education meets to consider the following measure: Committee 

Print of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2010. 

I recognize myself for an opening statement. 

This morning the Research and Science Education Subcommittee 

will consider the Committee Print of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2010. Today’s legislation will become an 

essential component of the reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act, which will be considered by the Full Committee later 

this month. 

The Subcommittee has held a series of hearings on topics ranging from the state of STEM education at all levels, to the need to 

promote high-risk, high-reward research, to ensuring a sustainable 

research infrastructure. In addition to our Subcommittee hearings, 

I have also held a number of listening sessions across the country 

to gain insights from those on the frontline of research facilitated 

by the NSF. The result of the listening sessions and the Subcommittee hearings is a bill that will accelerate the growth of scientific knowledge, promote knowledge transfer and innovation, 

build a 21st century STEM workforce, and spur economic development. 

The NSF was established 60 years ago, growing out of wartime 

research efforts and Vannevar Bush’s conviction that ‘‘new products, new industries, and more jobs require continuous additions to 

knowledge of the laws of nature, and the application of that knowledge to practical purposes.’’ And this has worked. Since World War 

II, 50 percent of U.S. GDP growth has come from the development 

and adoption of new technologies, along with countless improvements in medicine and national security. 

As a former assistant professor at a research university, I have 

a special appreciation for the NSF. In graduate school I received 

an NSF Dissertation Improvement Grant. Throughout my time in 

academe, I became very familiar with the critical role that the 

Foundation plays. When I was elected to Congress, I immediately 

requested a seat on this committee, partly because of the NSF. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
344 

When I had the opportunity to chair this subcommittee at the beginning of this Congress, I jumped at the chance because I knew 

the NSF reauthorization was on the agenda. 

While many agencies fund R&D, the NSF is unique in that supporting fundamental research and education in STEM disciplines is 

its only mission. Today’s legislation authorizes $47.5 billion for 

NSF over the next five years, keeping the agency on a doubling 

path, as recommended in the National Academies’ Rising Above the 

Gathering Storm report and set in motion in the 2007 America 

COMPETES Act. While the one-time investment NSF received 

through the Recovery Act helped keep the scientific enterprise 

thriving and the brightest young people in the STEM pipeline, sustained growth at NSF is necessary to maintain gains and to ensure 

U.S. competitiveness. 

NSF’s mission extends beyond promoting the best science, and 

the agency reviews grants not only on the basis of intellectual 

merit, but also on the broader impact of the activities proposed. 

Over 10 years ago, the NSF began to require that researchers include activities such as education and public outreach to broaden 

the impact of their research. Unfortunately, this requirement has 

had uneven success. This legislation addresses this issue by requiring NSF to standardize its policies for broader impacts, requiring 

that proposed activities be based on proven strategies, and encouraging institutions of higher education and other education and research organizations to assist their researchers in meeting the 

broader impacts criterion. 

The core of the NSF is innovation, and my legislation promotes 

it in a number of ways. First, it directs the NSF to spend at least 

five percent of its research budget on high-risk, high-reward proposals that have the potential to transform our understanding of 

science and engineering and create new frontiers. This is consistent 

with what we learned in our hearing on this subject last year, with 

recommendations in the National Academies’ Rising Above the 

Gathering Storm report, and with the 2008 American Academy of 

Arts and Sciences ARISE report. 

Next, this bill will advance manufacturing in the United States 

through investments in fundamental research in manufacturing 

technologies, materials and processes. Finally, it will help build 

stronger university-industry partnerships and ensure that researchers at institutions of all sizes and types understand how to 

engage successfully in knowledge transfer and innovation. 

But an innovation economy needs both ideas and a talented 

STEM workforce. This legislation promotes the development of all 

of the STEM talent our Nation has to offer by increasing the collaboration and coordination of NSF-funded education projects and 

by supporting early career researchers through postdoctoral fellowships. The bill also supports the equipment and infrastructure 

these researchers need to succeed, an issue raised continually by 

researchers and their academic institutions. The legislation addresses concerns about how the NSF supports mid-scale research 

instrumentation, and encourages the NSF to make sure that its investment in infrastructure, including cyberinfrastructure, instrumentation and interdisciplinary centers, grows along with the overall budget. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
345 

Having worked on this bill for many months, I believe we have 

produced legislation that we can all be proud of and that will help 

produce a significant boost that will be felt not only in American 

research labs and American classrooms, but also in American 

homes as innovation and education produce jobs. 

I want to thank my colleagues, including Mr. Mitchell, who have 

worked on and written pieces of this legislation, as well as both the 

Democratic and Republican Committee staffers who have spent 

many hours working together to improve and refine the bill. Finally, I want to thank Members for their participation this morning 

and I look forward to a productive hearing. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Lipinski follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DANIEL LIPINSKI

This morning the Research and Science Education Subcommittee will consider the 

Committee Print of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2010. Today’s legislation will become an essential component of the reauthorization of the 

America COMPETES Act, which will be considered by the full Committee later this 

month. 

The Subcommittee has held a series of hearings on topics ranging from the state 

of STEM education at all levels to the need to promote high-risk/high-reward research, to ensuring a sustainable research infrastructure. In addition to our Subcommittee hearings, I’ve also held a number of listening sessions across the country 

to gain insights from those on the frontline of research facilitated by the NSF. The 

result of the listening sessions and the Subcommittee hearings is a bill that will accelerate the growth of scientific knowledge, promote knowledge transfer and innovation, build a 21St century STEM workforce, and spur economic development. The 

NSF was established 60 years ago, growing out of wartime research efforts and 

Vannevar Bush’s conviction that ‘‘New products, new industries, and more jobs require continuous additions to knowledge of the laws of nature, and the application 

of that knowledge to practical purposes.’’ And it has worked. Since World War II, 

50% of U.S. GDP growth has come from the development and adoption of new technologies, along with countless improvements in medicine and national security. 

As a former assistant professor at a research university, I have a special appreciation for the NSF. In graduate school I received an NSF Dissertation Improvement 

Grant. Throughout my time in academia, I became very familiar with the critical 

role that the Foundation plays. When I was elected to Congress, I immediately requested a seat on this committee, partly because of the NSF. When I had the opportunity to chair this subcommittee at the beginning of this Congress I jumped at the 

chance because I knew the NSF reauthorization was on the agenda. 

While many agencies fund R&D, the NSF is unique in that supporting fundamental research and education in all STEM disciplines is its only mission. Today’s 

legislation authorizes $47.5 billion for NSF over the next 5 years, keeping the agency on a doubling path, as recommended in the National Academies’ Rising Above 

the Gathering Storm report and set in motion in the 2007 America COMPETES Act. 

While the one-time investment NSF received through the Recovery Act helped keep 

the scientific enterprise thriving and the brightest young people in the STEM pipeline, sustained growth at NSF is necessary to maintain gains and to ensure U.S. 

competitiveness. 

NSF’s mission extends beyond promoting the best science, and the agency reviews 

grants not only on the basis of intellectual merit, but also on the broader impact 

of the activities proposed. Over 10 years ago, the NSF began to require that researchers include activities—such as education and public outreach—to broaden the 

impact of their research; unfortunately, this requirement has had uneven success. 

This legislation addresses this issue by requiring NSF to standardize its policies for 

broader impacts, requiring that proposed activities be based on proven strategies, 

and encouraging institutions of higher education and other education and research 

organizations to assist their researchers in meeting the broader impacts criterion. 

The core of the NSF is innovation, and my legislation promotes it in a number 

of ways. First, it directs the NSF to spend at least 5 percent of its research budget 

on high-risk, high-reward proposals that have the potential to transform our understanding of science and engineering and create new frontiers. This is consistent with 

what we learned in our hearing on this subject last year, with recommendations in 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
346 

the National Academies’ Rising Above the Gathering Storm report, and with the 

2008 American Academy of. Arts and Sciences ARISE report. 

Next, it will advance manufacturing in the U.S. through investments in fundamental research in manufacturing technologies, materials, and processes. Finally, it 

will help build stronger university-industry partnerships and ensure that researchers at institutions of all sizes and types understand how to engage successfully in 

knowledge transfer and innovation. 

But an innovation economy needs both ideas and a talented STEM workforce. 

This legislation promotes the development of all of the STEM talent our Nation has 

to offer by increasing the collaboration and coordination of NSF-funded education 

projects and by supporting early career researchers through postdoctoral fellowships. The bill also supports the equipment and infrastructure these researchers 

need to succeed, an issue raised continually by researchers and their academic institutions. The legislation addresses concerns about how the NSF supports mid-scale 

research instrumentation, and encourages the NSF to make sure that its investment 

in infrastructure—including cyberinfrastructure, instrumentation, and interdisciplinary centers—grows along with the overall budget. 

Having worked on this bill for many months, I believe that we have produced legislation that we can be proud of and that will help produce a significant boost that 

will be felt not only in American research labs and American classrooms, but also 

in American homes as innovation and education produce jobs. 

I want to thank thy colleagues, including Mr. Mitchell, who have worked on and 

written pieces of this legislation, as well as both, the Democratic and Republican 

committee staffers who have spent many hours working together to improve and refine the bill. Finally, I want to thank Members for their participation this morning 

and I look forward to a productive markup. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. With that, I will turn it over to my colleague 

from Michigan, Dr. Ehlers, for his opening statement. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I second your comments about the way in which our staff and your staff has worked 

together on this bill. It is an extremely important bill, and they 

have worked well together and the end result will be improved as 

a result. 

I have been pleased to participate in the Research and Science 

Education Subcommittee’s markup and the hearings on the reauthorization of the National Science Foundation. This Committee 

Print will be an important piece of the reauthorization of the America COMPETES, and I have done something which is rarely done 

in these committees, although probably much more often occurs in 

Science Committee than any other committee, but I have read 

every word of the bill, and that indicates the importance of the 

issue and the attention that it needs. 

It is challenging to find large areas at the Foundation in need 

of great improvement. This is not because the agency is not operating well. This is an agency known for its responsible budgeting 

and respected for its merit review and evaluation processes. But 

overall I believe the bill we are considering today will further 

strengthen the National Science Foundation and also will improve 

our Nation’s ability to compete globally, an issue that is receiving 

considerable attention. 

However, I have a few reservations about some of the provisions 

we are considering today. Many of my colleagues are concerned 

that the authorized levels of funding for the National Science Foundation may be excessively high in light of our current economic situation, as well as the recent infusion of funds from the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act. In particular, some of my colleagues believe that infusion of funds eliminates the need for an increase at this point. You and I both know that is not correct. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
347 

I think that we can all agree that the NSF will function most effectively if we continue it on a strong doubling path that is also 

sustainable and that path was set forth in the America COMPETES Act and in subsequent actions, both in the Administration 

and in the Congress. I am hopeful that all of us can work together 

to find common ground on this issue and others that may raise 

questions about the appropriate roles and responsibilities of the 

NSF. 

As I said before, I want to recognize and thank the majority staff 

for working closely with the minority staff on many of the provisions included in the Committee Print, as well as incorporating a 

variety of expertise from the NSF stakeholder community. I look 

forward to our continued collaborations as we improve and refine 

the Committee Print before us today, and I thank you for the good 

atmosphere that you have maintained in this subcommittee, Mr. 

Chairman, and the way we have worked together for the good of 

the institution as well as the good of the research effort in America. 

With that, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE VERNON J. EHLERS

I am pleased to participate in the Research and Science Education Subcommittee’s 

markup of the reauthorization of the National Science Foundation (NSF). This Committee Print will be an important piece of the reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act. 

It is challenging to find large areas at the Foundation in need of great improvement. This is an agency known for its responsible budgeting and respected for its 

merit-review and evaluation processes. Overall, I believe the bill we are considering 

today further strengthens the National Science Foundation and improves our nation’s ability to compete globally. 

However, I have a few reservations about some of the provisions we are considering today. Many of my colleagues are concerned that the authorized levels of funding for the NSF may be excessively high in light of our current economic situation, 

as well as the recent infusion of funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. I think that we can all agree that the NSF will function most effectively 

if we continue it on a strong doubling path that is also sustainable. I am hopeful 

that we can work together to find common ground on this issue and others that may 

raise questions about the appropriate roles and responsibilities of the NSF. 

I want to recognize and thank the majority staff for working closely with the minority staff on many of the provisions included in the Committee Print, as well as 

incorporating a variety of expertise from the NSF stakeholder community. I look forward to continued collaborations as we improve and refine the Committee Print before us today. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers, and thank you for all 

your collaboration on making things move smoothly here, run 

smoothly. I think it is the best way for things to run and certainly 

not just for this subcommittee but for the entire Congress to work 

out best for our country and in science in general, which is what 

we’re here for. 

Does anyone else wish to be recognized? 

So at this point I ask unanimous consent that the print is considered as read and open to amendment at any point and that the 

members proceed with amendments in the order of the roster. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. The first amendment on the roster is a Manager’s Amendment offered by the Chair. The clerk will report the 

amendment. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
348 

The CLERK. Amendment number 006, amendment to the Committee Print offered by Mr. Lipinski of Illinois. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize myself for 

five minutes to explain the amendment. 

This Manager’s Amendment makes a number of technical and 

clarifying changes to the legislation in addition to codifying the important statistical work of the Foundation and adding three new 

sections that focus on the critical issues of promoting innovation 

and improving STEM education. 

The first amendment adds a new section that codifies the function of the NSF Division of Science Resources Statistics as a central federal clearinghouse for objective data on a scientific and engineering enterprise and the state of U.S. STEM education. SRS is 

responsible for the biennial Science and Engineering Indicators report that Congress relies so heavily on for an understanding of the 

state of U.S. competitiveness in science and technology. This section in reality is nothing more than a name change for SRS, but 

such a name change confers on them a status that truly reflects 

the critical work they do. 

The next main section, Partnerships for Innovation, was introduced earlier as H.R. 4998 by Mr. Hill. This section requires the 

Director of NSF to carry out a program to support partnerships between institutions of higher education and private-sector entities in 

order to promote innovation and increase the economic and social 

impact of their research. The ultimate goal is for these kinds of 

partnerships between diverse institutions and local industry to 

help spur regional economic growth and ensure a well-prepared 

STEM workforce for local jobs. 

Finally, the amendment introduces to the legislation two sections 

focused specifically on institutional reform and undergraduate and 

graduate STEM education. I want to thank Ms. Kosmas for introducing H.R. 4955, Transforming Undergraduate STEM Education, 

which has been incorporated as one of these sections. It authorizes 

a program of grants to colleges and universities to reform undergraduate STEM education, both to increase the number of STEM 

graduates and to improve STEM education for all students. This 

provision will go a long way to spurring the kind of institutional 

transformation that will result in better preparation of our graduates for the 21st century workforce. 

The Manager’s Amendment also includes a section on 21st Century Graduate Education. This language is based on Ms. Giffords’ 

bill, H.R. 4968. NSF has long provided financial support to graduate students through fellowships and traineeships, but there have 

been limited programs focused on ensuring that today’s STEM 

graduate students are graduating with the broader set of skills necessary to compete for 21st century jobs in all sectors, including academia, industry and government. This provision helps fill this gap 

in NSF’s current portfolio. 

Once again, I want to thank my colleagues, Mr. Hill, Ms. Kosmas 

and Ms. Giffords for their excellent contributions to this legislation 

and my Republican colleagues and their staff for all their hard 

work to help strengthen and clarify the language in both this 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
349 

amendment and the underlying bill, and I urge my colleagues to 

support this amendment. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Lipinski follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DANIEL LIPINSKI

This manager’s amendment makes a number of technical and clarifying changes 

to the legislation in addition to codifying the important statistical work of the Foundation and adding three new sections that focus on the critical issues of promoting 

innovation and improving STEM education. 

First, the amendment adds a new section that codifies the function of the NSF 

Division of Science Resource Statistics (SRS) as the central Federal clearinghouse 

for objective data on the scientific and engineering enterprise and the state of U.S. 

STEM education. As you may know, SRS is responsible for the biennial Science and 

Engineering Indicators report that the Congress relies so heavily on for an understanding of the state of U.S. competitiveness in science and technology. This section 

in reality is nothing more than a name change for SRS, but such a name change 

confers on them a status that truly reflects the critical work they do. 

The next main section, Partnerships for Innovation, was introduced earlier as 

H.R. 4998 by Congressman Hill. This section requires the Director of NSF to carry 

out a program to support partnerships between institutions of higher education and 

private sector entities in order to promote innovation and increase the economic and 

social impact of their research. The ultimate goal is for these kinds of partnerships 

between diverse institutions and local industry to help spur regional economic 

growth and ensure a well prepared STEM workforce for local jobs. 

Finally, the amendment introduces to the legislation two sections focused specifically on institutional reform in undergraduate and graduate STEM education. I 

want to thank Ms. Kosmas for introducing her bill, H.R. 4955, on transforming undergraduate education in STEM, which has been incorporated into the manager’s 

amendment. This section authorizes a program of grants to colleges and universities 

to reform undergraduate STEM education, both to increase the number of STEM 

graduates and to improve STEM education for all students. This good provision will 

go a long way in spurring the kind of institutional transformation that will result 

in better preparation of our graduates for the 21St century workforce. 

The manager’s amendment also includes a section on 21St Century Graduate 

Education. This language is based on a bill that Ms. Giffords introduced recently, 

H.R. 4968. NSF has long provided financial support to graduate students through 

fellowships and traineeships. But there have been limited programs focused on ensuring that today’s STEM graduate students are graduating with the broader set 

of skills necessary to compete for 21St century jobs in all sectors, including academia, industry and government. This provision helps fill this gap in NSF’s current 

portfolio. 

Once again, I want to thank my colleagues Mr. Hill, Ms. Kosmas, and Ms. Giffords for their excellent contributions to this legislation, and my Republican colleagues and their staff for all of their hard work to help strengthen and clarify the 

language in both this amendment and the underlying bill, and I urge my colleagues 

to support this amendment. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Is there further discussion on the amendment? The Chair recognizes Dr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am generally supportive of the Manager’s Amendment that you have offered. I understand that we are more explicitly codifying the science and engineering statistics office at the National Science Foundation and the 

Partnerships for Innovation program. In addition, we are strengthening STEM education for undergraduates, broadening graduate 

education opportunities and making other minor changes to the bill 

based on feedback from members and various stakeholders. 

My only concern is with specific regard to the Partnerships for 

Innovation section. I want to make sure that we have the benefit 

of hearing what comes out of the workshop NSF is holding on this 

topic within the next few weeks. I hope that you will continue to 

work with us to ensure that this language that we eventually adopt 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
350 

best captures what will make this program most effective at the 

Foundation, and with that, I yield back. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Dr. Ehlers, would you yield to me to respond 

on that? 

Mr. EHLERS. Yes, please proceed. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. The workshop that is going to take place, we 

will have the opportunity to incorporate any suggestions, any recommendations from that workshop into this before we proceed. We 

will be moving forward in two weeks in Full Committee, incorporating this legislation into the America COMPETES Act, and you 

can be assured that we will work to incorporate what comes out of 

that workshop. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Any further discussion on the amendment? 

The Chair recognizes Dr. Baird. 

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I commend you for this 

outstanding piece of work and like my colleague, Mr. Ehlers, am 

supportive of the Manager’s Amendment. 

I have had the opportunity in recent months to meet with a number of nonprofit innovators who are using technology and other 

skills to create products that might not be commercially competitive but made a tremendously important niche, for example, software or hardware applications for people with disabilities, orphan 

drugs, et cetera. By the nature of these enterprises and their products, they are not for profit and intentionally so, and for too long 

they have been excluded from federal programs like SBIR and to 

some degree from NSF competition. Hence, within the Partnership 

for Innovation, if we look at line 15 of page 4, I would hope the 

chairman will be amenable—I am not going to offer it as an 

amendment here today but I would hope the Chair would be amenable to adding the word ‘‘nonprofit’’ there on line 15 or in section 

B where it says ‘‘may include other institutions of higher education, 

public institutions and private-sector entities,’’ the premise being 

that all of the rationale for including those entities as partnerships 

would also apply to not-for-profit sectors such as I have just described. 

So if the Chair would be amenable to considering this between 

now and final passage, I would be grateful. If not, I would probably 

offer it as an amendment today but I don’t think it is probably necessary. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Dr. Baird, we will work with you on that to 

see what we can do there. It sounds like an ostensible recommendation, so we will work with you as we move forward. 

Mr. BAIRD. I thank the Chair. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Is there any further discussion on the 

amendment? If no, the vote will occur on the amendment. All in 

favor, say aye. All opposed, say no. The ayes have it and the 

amendment is agreed to. 

The second amendment on the roster is an amendment offered 

by the Chair. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 060, amendment to the Committee Print offered by Mr. Lipinski of Illinois. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
351 

Chairman LIPINSKI. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize myself for 

five minutes to explain the amendment. 

The amendment at the desk would create an innovation inducement prize pilot program at the National Science Foundation. In 

recent years, innovation inducement prizes have been offered not 

only by the private sector but also by the Federal Government 

through NASA, the DOE and the Department of Defense. Although 

the NSF has not used such prizes, language in the 2006 appropriations bill led to a National Academy study of the idea. The study 

concluded that an ambitious program of innovation inducement 

prize contests will be a sound investment in strengthening the infrastructure for U.S. innovation. Thus, they recommended that 

NSF embrace this challenge as an opportunity both to advance 

science and engineering and to learn a great deal more than we 

now know about what may prove to be a valuable mode of support 

for research and innovation. My amendment would simply implement the recommendations of this report by creating a small pilot 

program at NSF to explore what could be a valuable mode of support for research and innovation. Specifically, it authorizes $12 million for up to five prizes that could run for as many as seven years. 

I see two primary benefits of such a program. First, it is another 

way to encourage high-risk, high-reward research unlike a traditional grant proposal which necessarily focuses on incremental 

challenges that can be solved during the grant period. A prize contest can highlight important problems that nobody knows how to 

solve. Second, if it is done right, a prize program can help the NSF 

and the scientific endeavor with public relations. It can generate 

excitement and interest in the frontiers of science. There are other 

benefits too, such as researching a broader range—reaching a 

broader range of researchers than a traditional grant. 

But I want to caution that not all problems are well suited to innovation inducement prizes, and this is in no way intended to replace the grant making that the NSF does so well. I would also like 

to point out that the intent of this program is to promote innovation in basic science and engineering rather than the creation of 

specific technologies or products. 

Ultimately, the goal of this amendment is to further diversify our 

approach to funding science and engineering. I think there are a 

number of potential benefits and that a pilot program is the right 

way to see exactly how useful innovation inducement prizes can be. 

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Lipinski follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DANIEL LIPINSKI

The amendment at the desk would create an innovation inducement prize pilot 

program at the National Science Foundation. 

The idea of innovation.inducement prizes at the NSF may be new to some of you, 

so let me briefly offer some background before getting into the details of my amendment. Governments have been offering prize purses for solutions to predefined scientific or technological problems since at least 1714, when the British government 

offered the ‘‘Longitude Prize’’ for improvements in navigation at sea. This prize resulted in advances in astronomy and timekeeping. Since then, we have seen prizes 

offered in everything from aviation to biomedicine to pure mathematics. 

Innovation inducement prizes have been used by NASA, the DOE, the Department of Defense, and the private sector, but they have not been used by the NSF. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
352 

In 2006, appropriations language led to a National Academies study of the idea, one 

which concluded that innovation inducement prizes would be ‘‘a sound investment 

in strengthening the infrastructure for U.S. innovation.’’ 

My amendment would implement the recommendations of this report, creating a 

small pilot program at the NSF to explore what could be a valuable mode of support 

for research and innovation. Specifically, it authorizes $12 M for up to 5 prize contests that could run for as many as 7 years. 

I see two primary benefits to such a program. First, it is another way to encourage high-risk/high-reward research. Unlike a traditional grant proposal, which necessarily focuses on incremental challenges that can be solved during the grant period, a prize contest can highlight important problems that nobody knows how to 

solve. Second, if it’s done right, a prize program can help science with its public relations problem. It can generate excitement and interest in the frontiers of science, 

like what the Netflix prize did for an obscure computer science problem or the Xprize did for space flight. 

There are other benefits too, such as reaching a broader range of researchers than 

a traditional grant. But I want to caution that not all problems are well suited to 

innovation inducement prizes, and that this is in no way intended to replace the 

grant-making that the NSF does so well. I would also like to point out that the intent of this program is to promote innovation in basic science and engineering rather than the creation of specific technologies or products. 

Ultimately the goal of this amendment is to further diversify our approach to 

funding science and engineering. I think there are a number of potential benefits, 

and that a pilot program is the right way to see exactly how useful innovation inducement prizes can be. 

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. 

Is there any further discussion on the amendment? The Chair 

recognizes Dr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think prizes are an excellent idea. They have a place and they have been used very effectively in certain areas. I have some concerns about NSF being part 

of that process. I am not aware of any evidence that they are 

equipped at this point to implement the program in an effective 

manner, and I am also concerned about statements made by the 

current Director who as you know is leaving shortly, when he says 

at this type of prize is not appropriate for the National Science 

Foundation, and I think we need further conversations with each 

other and with the outgoing Director and perhaps with the National Science Board itself as to whether or not this is an appropriate activity for the National Science Foundation and how this 

activity would mesh with their current grant-making efforts. I am 

not in the camp of being opposed to something just because it is 

new, but I am in the camp that says examine it very carefully 

when you have a system that is working effectively, and we are not 

sure how a new system might impact the current system. So I am 

just saying, I am willing to consider it, and I think we should look 

more carefully at it than we have, and particularly review what the 

outgoing Director says and perhaps if we can wait a while, what 

the incoming Director prefers about this, and also get some reaction from the scientific community as to whether or not they think 

it is an appropriate activity for the National Science Foundation. 

So I am basically taking the slow approach and say let us look 

at this carefully and decide what we really will be doing, will it be 

effective or will it not be. I will yield back. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Dr. Ehlers, I recognize your concerns. That 

is why we are moving forward with this as a pilot project. The National Academies’ report, as I mentioned in my statement, did recommend that NSF do this. I think the pilot will present an opportunity to see how successful NSF can be with the inducement prize 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
353 

approach to funding research. Clearly, this is a very, very small 

piece of what the NSF is going to be authorized for as compared 

to the grants that will be authorized in this bill, and so I think that 

this is the right first step to be making to have such a pilot program, and I know that we have a new NSF Director coming in and 

certainly we will work with him or her on how to best do this at 

the NSF, but I think this is the proper way to be going about moving forward on this, and if there are further enhancements, further 

revisions that need to be made as the process moves along, we will 

see if we have an NSF—when we will have the NSF Director in 

place. We are not certain right now what the time period is going 

to be but I think moving ahead with the inducement prize pilot 

program is the right move at this time. 

Is there further discussion on this? Mr. Neugebauer. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, you know, I 

love the incentive program. I came from about 25 years of incentive 

that if you sold something, you got to eat, and so I understand incentives extremely well and I appreciate I think the spirit of which 

the chairman is headed. 

You know, when I look at this agency, I think they are already 

giving out prizes because basically they are granting money hopefully for projects that show innovation and promise and so I guess 

I am having a little bit of a problem of understanding, you know, 

when do you get a grant and when do you get a prize and whether 

this is the appropriate forum for that kind of a program. Do you 

follow what I am saying? Because hopefully every billion dollar or 

every single dollar that we are authorizing here is going for 

projects that are innovation and show promise and that we 

shouldn’t be just looking for one, that they all ought to meet that 

criteria, so I appreciate the Chairman’s being innovative and creative here. There may be a place in our jurisdiction here of where 

this is appropriate place to be but I am questioning if this is the 

place for that to be since I hope that is already the job that they 

are doing, and I would yield to the gentleman to respond to that. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Well, I think what you started out your 

statement with, saying that the incentive that if you produce, then 

you can eat, basically that is what we are looking at here with the 

inducement prizes. With most grants, you have a proposal of research. You hope to find results. You are looking to find results but 

you don’t know what that is going to be. This is a situation where 

no money is going to anyone until they produce a result that is 

being sought, and these are going to be results that are determined, that the NSF determines, that are important in terms of innovation, finding solutions to problems, whatever it is that the 

NSF decides are important results they are looking for. It is just 

another way of doing this rather than saying upfront, here is the 

money and hopefully this research will yield a result. It is, you go 

out there, do the work, find the result, and if you do, then you get 

the prize, and in many ways I think that it is just a different way 

of going about it, but it is exactly what you said. If you don’t 

produce, you don’t eat, and I think that is something good to look 

at, at least, and the pilot program is a way to look at that. I yield 

back. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
354 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Reclaiming my time. Well, I guess the question I have is that is there anything in the way that we have structured NSF now that they couldn’t do that without—in other words, 

if somebody brings, you know, a good idea to the table or a successful solution, that NSF couldn’t reward them. Because generally 

what those projects, while they may be moving in a direction, you 

know, they are a new discovery but generally they require refinement before commercialization and generally I would think that is 

what you are looking for here is an idea that somebody has come 

up with, it is a great idea, you want to give them a prize for it but 

at some point in time generally there is another step or two to commercialize those good ideas, and is there anything that prevents 

them from—I believe they have the authority to do that right now. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. My understanding is that right now that is 

not the way that the NSF works, that they do not have authorization right now to offer a prize. It is all just upfront that you are 

given—you put in a proposal. If that proposal is determined-it will 

be funded, you will receive the grant, and that is the only way that 

NSF right now is authorized to give out the money. It would need 

authorization to be able to do this. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I think there is some disagreement whether 

that is the case or not. I am not a lawyer so I am not going to—— 

Chairman LIPINSKI. I am not one either. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Well, could we get feedback from counsel on 

whether you think this currently—that this requires—sometimes, 

you know, the bureaucrats want to, you know, get Congress to say 

they can do what they already have the ability to do. 

The COUNSEL. I believe, Congressman, we would have to verify 

this but I believe the sticking issue could be how appropriations 

works for the National Science Foundation. The way the prize program language is written, NSF can hold onto the money for seven 

years before they reprogram it to allow the prize program to play 

out. Normally NSF is given appropriations on an annual basis and 

they can’t just hold onto money indefinitely without committing it, 

obligating it to some research project or such things. So we can go 

back and verify that and get back to you, but that is my suspicion, 

that the authorization is lacking because of the appropriations 

issue. 

Chairman GORDON. Will the gentleman yield? I think that the 

distinction here is that currently, the NSF can give grants for good 

idea. What Mr. Lipinski wants to do is be able to give a grant for 

a good product, so that is, you know—or a good result, you could 

say. So I think that is really the distinction. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. But isn’t the purpose of NSF more for basic 

research than applied? I mean, we are moving in a different direction here? I mean—— 

Chairman LIPINSKI. This is something that I want to make sure 

that we don’t get into the realm of thinking that this is about producing a product, because we look at other prizes and we sometimes think well, it is going—we are talking about a product. There 

are other potential prizes. We just had the Clay Math Institution’s 

Millennium Challenge Prize. The Poincare ́ conjecture was solved 

under this program. It was a 100-year-old topology problem. So it 

was purely a mathematical problem. We are looking at prizes here 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
355 

not to be moving to, okay, you get a prize for producing a product, 

but there are breakthroughs that are being sought in science and 

technology, not necessarily products but breakthroughs that are 

being sought that inducement prizes could play an important role 

in providing that incentive. 

Is there further discussion on this amendment? The Chair recognizes Mr. Inglis. 

Mr. INGLIS. The Chairman and I share co-paternity with the HPrize, so I am very excited about prizes. It is a great idea to have 

prizes that incentivize breakthrough discoveries. One of the things 

we learned as you recall from Peter Diamandis, Chairman of the 

X PRIZE, testifying here a while back is that—when we were working on the H-Prize—is that prizes are successful if they have clearly defined metrics just beyond what is currently achievable, and 

that of course was the secret to the X PRIZE and it worked very 

well. That’s what Dr. Lipinski and I worked on in coming up with 

the H-Prize, and that is underway, and of course the Department 

of Energy will now be administering that prize. Along the way, we 

heard from the National Science Foundation, as you recall, that 

they really didn’t want to administer that prize, which it made me 

scratch my head because it is rare that a federal agency says that 

they don’t want more money or authority, and so—and I am not 

sure that I am here to advocate strongly for the position of agreeing with them, because it does seem that NSF is a place that could 

be very involved in the creative process of figuring out what the 

prize metric should be and putting them just beyond what is 

achievable, but what they told us back in the H-Prize is that they 

didn’t want to do that, that they would prefer for it to be done elsewhere. Like I said, I am just restating what they told us in the HPrize. I am not sure I am really committed to that conclusion they 

drew but it is, however, their conclusion. I don’t know if Dr. Lipinski has some thought about why it was that they didn’t want us 

to do this in their jurisdiction. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. If the gentleman will yield? 

Mr. INGLIS. I would be happy to. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. I believe that the NSF is looking at the HPrize—the NSF believed that that got out of their basic science, 

doing basic science, and I think again we need to go back and look 

at this again and think about this. We are not talking about the— 

the H-Prize was looking at making some advances which were— 

some of them have to do with a product. Some would have to do 

with maybe a process, but I think there is a line there the NSF 

was concerned about crossing with the H-Prize, into an area beyond basic science in research that they may not have wanted to 

get into there, and I think that may have been the reason why the 

NSF took that position with the H-Prize specifically. 

Mr. INGLIS. Reclaiming my time. I think that is a very helpful 

distinction, and it is—to the earlier discussion about whether it is 

products or breakthroughs and processes or—keeping it in the 

basic science realm would be an interesting distinction here because I agree with you, the H-Prize really did have metrics where 

we were trying to get to products and trying to get to the market, 

and perhaps that is why NSF wasn’t so thrilled with it or didn’t 

think it was in their bailiwick, but if it is some metric that those 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
356 

of us that just play scientists on the Science Committee couldn’t 

understand, in other words, some very clear metric in some field 

that is basic science, then perhaps NSF would be excited about administering such a prize there. That is a helpful distinction you 

just have drawn, I think. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Thank you. 

Is there further discussion on the amendment? Dr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Just very quickly, I am very intrigued by Mr. 

Neugebauer’s comment, and Texas really knows how to do things 

well, his comment that you don’t get to eat unless you work, and 

so perhaps this would be a way of shortening our committee meetings. The shorter the meeting, the more donuts you get, but if you 

raise any issues about global climate change, you don’t get any 

donuts, and that would probably speed up our committee meetings. 

Thank you. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers. 

Any further discussion on the amendment? If no, the vote will 

occur on the amendment. All those in favor, say aye. All opposed, 

say no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. 

The third amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 

the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Neugebauer. Are you ready to proceed with your amendment? 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I am having several conversations here, Mr. 

Chairman. I apologize for that. I have an amendment at the desk, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 009, amendment to the Committee Print offered by Mr. Neugebauer of Texas. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain the amendment. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and first of all, 

let me preface by saying, you know, I think research is very important. There is a lot of very important things that the Congress is 

involved in. Unfortunately, we have reached a time in our country 

where we are going to have to make some choices. American families all across the country are having to make choices right now. 

Many of them are unemployed. Some of them are behind on their 

mortgages. They have too much credit card, maybe bought a little 

more house than they should, and I get letters from them on a 

daily basis telling me, you know, Congressman, we are cutting 

back, we are taking second jobs, we are trying to get our financial 

house in order, and you know, I think the number one question 

that they ask me is, why isn’t Congress doing the same thing, and 

we hear a lot of our leaders talking about it. We heard the President talk about our dire fiscal state of the union, but unfortunately, 

the budget that was sent over by the White House doesn’t reflect 

a lot of concern or bring us in a direction that would reduce these 

deficits. The Congressional Budget Office the other day said that 

by 2020, that our debt will be at a level that is 90 percent of our 

economy. That is an alarming number. We just came off of a $1.4 

or $1.5 trillion deficit. We are headed in that direction as well, and 

it just appears to me that we have to at some point in time say, 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
357 

you know what, some of these things are good, they are important 

but right now, you know, we have to sharpen our pencils a little 

bit. 

And basically what my amendment does is, it just reduces the 

overall authorization from five years to three years and would 

change the cost of this legislation from $47.5 billion to $26.7 billion, 

still allows the three-year authorization, has some increases, as the 

Chairman is aware, but, you know, I think we are going to have 

to start dealing in a little bit shorter time frame because we really 

don’t know what the future holds, and if in three year, for example, 

we haven’t made any progress on this deficit, you know, we are 

going to have to take a look at that. You know, I almost kind of 

call this a sunset provision. In Texas, as Mr. Ehlers said, I think 

we do do some things right and one of the things we do in Texas 

is, we sunset these programs and so you have to come back and 

say, you know, we need to reauthorize these, we don’t need to let 

this sunset, but, you know, what has been the results of the money 

that we have invested on behalf of the American people. We have 

to remember who this money belongs to. This doesn’t belong to you 

and me. This money belongs to the American people, and unfortunately, we are having to go to a Chinese bank to finance a lot of 

our projects. Over 41 cents of every dollar we are spending right 

now we are borrowing from others. So I just think this is a commonsense approach. I think it keeps the funding levels at a sustainable rate for the next three years but it does just reign in the 

time frame and begins to look at, based on the way CBO scores, 

you know, they look at a 10-year horizon here and so I would encourage my colleagues to think about the American taxpayers and 

think about our children and our grandchildren who are going to 

eventually have to pay for these things that we didn’t have the 

courage quite honestly to pay for while it was on our watch, so I 

yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Neugebauer follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RANDY NEUGEBAUER

Thank you Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. 

We often hear from the President and leaders here in Washington of the dire fiscal state of our nation, but regrettably the President’s budget for 2011 continues 

Washington’s out-of-control spending habits. 

A report by the Congressional Budget Office confirms this and shows that the 

President’s latest budget drives debt to an alarming 90 percent of the economy by 

2020, pushes spending to $3.8 trillion in 2011, widens the deficit to $1.5 trillion in 

2010, and raises taxes by $1.8 trillion through 2020. 

And today, we’re here to ensure we follow that downward trajectory unless we 

take action to rein in our out of control spending. We are proposing to reauthorize 

the National Science Foundation for 5 years at a cost of almost $48 billion. 

The Committee print before us authorizes more than $48 billion over fives years. 

As we know, recently, as part of the overall package of COMPETES, the Energy 

and Environment Committee passed similar legislation authorizing nearly $41 billion.. My amendment would simply reduce this authorization from 5 years to three, 

holding off on spending almost $21 billion that we would ultimately have to borrow. 

I assume this will be viewed as a slash and burn amendment, it is not my intention. By adopting my amendment, we will be on the road to reauthorizing the National Science Foundation at a more than sufficient level of nearly $27 billion—$27 

billion over 3 years. 

Its time we work to restore some fiscal sanity here in Washington and set responsible levels of funding. Additionally, by setting this on a 3-year path rather than 

five, it provides future Congresses the opportunity to review this issue and make 

changes sooner, rather than later. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
358 

I urge adoption of this amendment. 

[Yield the balance of your time]. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Neugebauer. The Chair will 

recognize himself. 

I understand your concerns and certainly share your concerns 

about the deficit and our federal debt, and the idea of having a 

shorter time frame if we are looking at a program that the Congress is creating or we are mandating exactly how the money is 

being spent, if that were the case here, I might be a little more 

open to making it a shorter authorization time. What we are looking at here, I don’t believe any of us are talking about sunsetting 

the NSF and in three years eliminating the NSF, and that is where 

I think that this is a different situation from what you were speaking of that could be applied elsewhere. The determination of—first 

of all, I think we agree that we want to keep the National Science 

Foundation. It certainly has a history of success, so I don’t think 

anyone is saying well, maybe in three years we are going to decide 

it is not a good place to be spending our money anymore. So I think 

that doesn’t apply here. It may apply to other programs we may 

be looking at. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Would the gentleman yield? 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Yes. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I think maybe the sunset word was not the 

right word. Sometimes you can use the wrong word. I think the 

point I did want to make is that we may be in a situation in three 

years where even though NSF is doing those kinds of things that 

we want it to be doing, we just may not be able to sustain it at 

that level, and so I guess that point we may have to say and we 

may not have to say—I am hopeful that the jobs that we have all 

been promised start showing up and the economy gets back on 

track, but that is not the direction that we are headed right now 

and so I think that is the reason that shortening the threshold, 

maybe being more prudent—companies and families do that, you 

know, you have to say you know what, we are going to—over the 

next two or three years maybe we are not going to take as many 

vacations or we are not going to buy new furniture or we are not 

going to replace the car. They are driving their car a little bit 

longer. I think these are the kinds of choices that the American 

people quite honestly are a little puzzled at the United States Congress in making some of those same kinds of—having that kind of 

dialog and making those tough choices, and they are not fun 

choices to make. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Reclaiming my time. Again, I agree that 

families are making a lot of tough choices right now but the way 

I look at this bill is, we should not—hopefully we are not seeing 

families make the choice of saying, well, we will send our child to 

college for one year and that is all we will plan on and we will see 

how things go from there. It is an investment that we are making 

in the future for our country. The original COMPETES was a 

three-year bill. This gave us a chance today to revisit some of the 

issues we didn’t address in 2007 and respond to some of the reports 

that are required in the bill, but I don’t think that really gave us 

enough time to evaluate the progress of everything the Foundation 

implemented based on the 2007 bill. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
359 

An issue that I had was raised a number of times in hearings 

but especially in listening sessions I had was as with any research 

program, you need consistency and reliability of resources. In order 

to foster innovation, you have to have—know that there is a commitment there and I think the five-year time period is the right 

amount of time to be committed here to the NSF and what funding 

level that we are going to give in funding the NSF in general, and 

so I think that that is the right choice that we made with this bill 

to have a five-year time period. With that, I will yield back. 

Does anyone else have—the Chair recognizes Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. I was listening to Mr. Neugebauer and he has a right 

to get at least one word wrong. We had a vice president who 

couldn’t spell potato, so that one bit, he can blame that on his 

speechwriter, and I have just spoken to him and he denies that he 

put it in there. He is from deep west Texas and you have to make 

some exceptions for him sometime. 

I think it is a very reasonable request. I was waiting to hear Dr. 

Ehlers and see what he said, but this doesn’t lower the authorization amounts, it simply makes it a three-year bill versus a five-year 

bill, and I support a robust budget for NSF fully dedicated to keep 

them on a doubling path but it is important that we do use diligent 

oversight of the provisions we are putting into place, and NSF will 

probably have a new director in place within the year, might even 

have a new President with a couple of years or maybe within a 

year if he keeps going to Russia and signs something we won’t use 

any method of national defense we have if we are attacked. We 

don’t yet know what plans that new director may have in mind, 

and the amendment would reduce the overall price of this bill by 

over $20 billion and that is a savings of over 44 percent. I think 

those are things we need to be thinking about, and I yield back my 

time. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Is there further discussion? The Chair recognizes Dr. Baird. 

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, a couple of quick points. We had in 

the run-up to this markup hearings in which organizations respected by both parties but I think that tend to be favorably appreciated certainly by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle including the National Association of Manufacturers, the Chamber of 

Commerce, the Business Roundtable, the Council on Competitiveness. All of those organizations, those radical organizations, support a five-year bill, and I think they support a five-year bill because, recalling their testimony, they recognize that if we are to be 

competitive, if we are to get out of this deficit, if we are to create 

jobs, if we are to solve our energy problems and stimulate our economy, et cetera, we have to have that core infrastructure of science 

and technology, and this bill is designed to do that. 

So consistent with their support of this bill, I think we need a 

five-year bill, but beyond that, I think we need to understand how 

these kinds of programs work. If you just do a three-year authorization, the institutions and investigators and the collaborations 

that this bill particularly calls for, which are consistent with the 

testimony that we have heard, those efforts depend on some kind 

of time frame and predictability. If we do just a three-year authorization, institutions that might be seeking to formulate teams, for 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
360 

example, to work on a particular area of investigation, they need 

to know that that is going to be there for a while. Otherwise the 

risk is that you put together a collaborative team, topflight researchers, you apply for the grant, and guess what, you just lost 

the reauthorization a couple years after and you are not able to 

compete for it or you are not able to fulfill it. 

So both because of the practicalities of the way people apply for 

and utilize grants in the real world, not this world but the real 

world, and the recommendations of the various aforementioned organizations, I would urge defeat of this. And the other thing I 

would say is, I think with respect to both gentlemen from Texas, 

unless we are saying that at the end of three years we are going 

to stop the NSF, which I think would be catastrophic for this country, then we are not really saving anything. I mean, this is the old 

trick of, we are going to sunset the tax cuts and say ‘look how 

much cheaper these tax cuts are.’ The fact is, we are going to reauthorize NSF in a couple of years. 

The other fact is, there is nothing saying we can’t engage in annual oversight, which we should do and we do on an ongoing basis, 

but Mr. Neugebauer wants some time and I am happy to yield. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I just want to be clear. You know, my amendment does not reduce the level of funding for those three years. So 

I think we are good to go on that. The initial authorization was 

three years, and so we are just—we are coming up on that threeyear period. We are going to do it another three years, and, you 

know, I think people probably have some assurance, you know, 

that we are going to have an NSF reauthorization hopefully in 

three years, if my amendment passes, but it does put I think 

some—to me, puts a string there that if I am at NSF, I am going 

to look very carefully at the projects and the grants that I am putting out because, you know, I realize that these are not infinite resources and there is a possibility that if the trends continue, that, 

you know, people don’t build a program that we may not be able 

to sustain. We may have to come in and of course obviously at the 

appropriation level, you know, cut down the funding for that. But 

I just think if it was good enough to start the program, it is good 

enough to continue the program, and I thank the gentleman for his 

time. 

Mr. BAIRD. You bet. The other thing to be aware of is, some 

projects expand more than a couple of years, and by their nature 

they require multiyear investments, and there is actually a false 

economy. If you ask somebody to commit to an investment of infrastructure, time, equipment, personnel, et cetera, the mobilization 

costs of that and then suddenly there is a risk that you pull the 

plug at the end of it, you are not actually doing yourself a service. 

People instead will shy away from sustained commitment that may 

yield the more beneficial results and focus on the sure thing, 

maybe the easier and less substantial thing. I think we all, I hope, 

share the commitment to be fiscally responsible here, but I don’t 

think creating unpredictability in the research environment is consistent with that, nor is it consistent with the desires of the National Associate of Manufacturers, the Chamber of Commerce, the 

Business Roundtable or the Council on Competitiveness, and I 

yield back. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
361 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Is there further discussion? The Chair will 

recognize Dr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the most important thing to remember is not just this committee but the entire 

Congress is already on record as supporting a doubling of the funding of the National Science Foundation, and that action was 

taken—took place a couple of years ago. So the commitment is already there that we will double the funding for the National 

Science Foundation over a period of seven years. 

I think the best argument for Mr. Neugebauer’s amendment is 

the change of directors, and I think we retain more flexibility if we 

ensure that when the new director comes in, he has an understanding that we have a three-year budget but we would like to 

work with the new director on pinning down what is going to be 

in the next part of the seven-year doubling and it gives the new 

director more of an opportunity to review where the Foundation is 

and where it should go in the next few years, particularly after the 

three years is up. So I think there is a good argument to proceed 

with Mr. Neugebauer’s amendment and I don’t see this as permanently impinging on the budget of the NSF. It just gives the opportunity for the new director to put his stamp on whatever he is 

going to adopt and also recognize in the same breath that the Congress has already said we want to double it in seven years and so 

that will be his goal that he can aim for. It may well take him close 

to three years just to come up with feeling comfortable in his new 

job and coming up with a number that he would like to see at that 

point. I yield back. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers. 

Any further discussion on the amendment? If no, the vote will 

occur on the amendment. All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed, say no. The no’s have it. The amendment is not agreed to. 

Mr. Neugebauer? 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Could I have a recorded vote, and would some 

of the majority like go to make a cell phone call while we vote? 

Chairman LIPINSKI. The clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Chairman Lipinski? 

Chairman LIPINSKI. No. 

The CLERK. Chairman Lipinski votes no. Ms. Johnson? 

Ms. JOHNSON. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Johnson votes no. Mr. Baird? 

Mr. BAIRD. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Baird votes no. Ms. Fudge? 

Ms. FUDGE. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Fudge votes no. Mr. Tonko? 

Mr. TONKO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Tonko votes no. Mr. Carnahan? 

Mr. CARNAHAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Carnahan votes no. Mr. Gordon? 

Chairman GORDON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gordon votes no. Mr. Ehlers? 

Mr. EHLERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers votes aye. Mr. Neugebauer? 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer votes aye. Mr. Inglis? 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
362 

Mr. INGLIS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis votes aye. Mr. Bilbray? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Hall? 

Mr. HALL. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hall votes aye. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Have all members been recorded? 

The CLERK. Yes. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. The clerk will report the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, four members vote aye and seven 

members vote no. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. The amendment is defeated. 

The fourth amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 

the gentleman from Texas. Are you ready to proceed with your 

amendment? 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 

desk. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. The clerk will report the amendment. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11ozz.eps
363 

The CLERK. Amendment number 007, amendment to the Committee Print offered by Mr. Neugebauer of Texas. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain the amendment. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Section 203 of the 

underlying bill directs the National Science Foundation to carry out 

a program to award merit-based grants to universities to support 

fundamental research, research that would hopefully lead to the 

transformative advances in manufacturing technologies, processes 

and enterprises that will support U.S. manufacturing through improved performance and productivity. However, I am concerned 

that we are going down a road of establishing a prescriptive list 

that just could easily perhaps be resolved through report language. 

While many of these are worthy areas where we should be focusing 

our energy and limited resources, although Congress doesn’t appear to have a real appetite to limit resources, my worry is that 

once again we are getting into the business of picking winners and 

losers, and I don’t think that this is a bad list but I wonder if by 

putting this in the bill rather than perhaps in report, we are boxing ourselves in and ultimately the National Science Foundation 

being boxed in as well, and we risk eliminating alternative avenues 

for research by unwittingly providing limitations. 

So I guess what I am saying here is that, you know, sometimes 

Congress can try to micromanage too much and in many cases we 

don’t manage enough, but I just wonder here if we are being too 

prescriptive, and with that, I yield back my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Neugebauer follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RANDY NEUGEBAUER

Thank you Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. 

Section 203 of the underlying bill directs the National Science Foundation to 

carry-out a program to award merit-based grants to universities to support fundamental research. 

Research that would hopefully lead to transformative advances in manufacturing 

technologies, processes and enterprises that will support U.S. manufacturing 

through improved performance and productivity. 

However, I have a concern that we are going down the road of establishing in law, 

a prescriptive list that could just as easily be perhaps be resolved through report 

language. 

While many of these are worthy areas where we should be focusing our energy 

and [limited] resources (although this Congress doesn’t appear to have the appetite 

to limit resources), my worry is that we’re once again getting into the business of 

picking winners and losers. 

I do not think this is a bad list, but I wonder if by putting this in the bill, rather 

than perhaps the report we’re boxing ourselves and ultimately the National Science 

Foundation in here. And do we risk eliminating alternative avenues for research by 

unwittingly providing limitations. 

I urge adoption of this amendment. 

[Yield the balance of your time]. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Thank you. The Chair will recognize himself 

for five minutes. 

This amendment, which would eliminate the list of areas in manufacturing is a—well, first of all, the list is a non-binding list, and 

I know that there always will be discussions, maybe disagreements 

over how much—what Congress should be saying, what Congress 

should not be saying, but I think that it is a role of this committee 

to indicate our priorities for federal investments in research. EveryVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00369 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
364 

one has agreed that these research areas are important for advancing manufacturing technologies, processes and systems. They will 

be critical to revitalization of our manufacturing base. In fact, the 

NSF currently supports research in all of these areas, and I believe 

that this list simply—first of all, it doesn’t tell NSF what they must 

fund, but points out the priorities that this committee has when it 

comes to manufacturing and funding research in these areas. I 

don’t think that we are necessarily picking the winners and losers, 

and I think that this is a proper role of Congress and this committee in this bill. So I am going to urge my colleagues to oppose 

this amendment. I yield back. 

Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Seeing as 

there is none, we now move to a vote. All those in favor of the 

amendment, say aye. All opposed, say no. The no’s have it and the 

amendment is not agreed to. 

The fifth amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 

the gentleman from Texas. Are you ready to proceed with your 

amendment? 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at 

the desk. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 008, amendment to the Committee Print offered by Mr. Neugebauer of Texas. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain the amendment. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment that just maintains current policy. Currently, the Noyce 

scholarships are on a 50/50 match basically, and, you know, the 

program seeks to encourage talented science, technology, engineering and mathematics majors and professionals to become K-12 

mathematics and science teachers, and that is important, but at 

the same token, you know, the situation that we are in right now 

in our budget, as I made the point earlier, is it is not like that we 

have extra money to help out with this program. We don’t have 

extra money, and so we can’t just transfer all of the financial woes 

of state and local and universities and others to the Federal Government because this is the Federal Government that doesn’t have 

the resources currently as well, and so basically I think at this particular point in time we can show we are trying to be fiscally responsible here and we are not trying to put more and more burden 

on a government that doesn’t have those resources. I support the 

importance of math and science teachers. I think we do have a program that is in place here and people are taking advantage of it, 

but at this particular point in time I just don’t think we have the 

resources to decrease the match requirement on this and so I would 

urge my colleagues to support my amendment. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Neugebauer follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RANDY NEUGEBAUER

Thank you Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. 

According to the National Science Foundation, the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program seeks to encourage talented science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics majors and professionals to become K–12 mathematics and science 

teachers. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
365 

The Noyce Scholarship Track provides funds to institutions of higher education 

to support scholarships, stipends, and academic programs for undergraduate STEM 

majors and post-baccalaureate students holding STEM degrees who earn a teaching 

credential and commit to teaching in high-need K–12 school districts. 

Schools in my district have had the benefit of taking part in this program by 

working to create math clubs and math academies in 

schools throughout the South Plains. While each of my colleagues here today 

shares a passion for further STEM education in our schools, I believe we also need 

continue applying economics as well. 

As I have said in the past, for every $1.00 we spend today, we have to borrow 

40 cents, in fact it’s gone up to 41 cents. For every dollar we spend on my district, 

or the Chairman’s, or any member in this room, the fact is, we’re getting closer and 

closer to having to borrow 50 percent of that money. We continue spending money 

we do not have. 

My amendment would help to rein in this spending, by maintaining the current 

ratio of Federal to local spending on the Noyce Scholarship. Currently, the Federal 

Government requires the participating school fund 50 percent of their program, and 

the NSF will fund the remaining. However, before us today, is a proposal to provide 

70 percent of funding to a participants’ 30 percent. 

There is no one on this dais that doesn’t see that cities, towns, states and universities are scaling back. Yet time and time again, up here in Washington, we fail to 

do the same. 

Its time we restore fiscal balance, while continuing to provide the appropriate resources that we can provide to continue leading in these areas. 

I urge adoption of this amendment. 

[Yield the balance of your time] 

Chairman GORDON. Will the Chairman yield, or not yield, but 

may I be recognized? 

Chairman LIPINSKI. The Chair recognizes Mr. Gordon. 

Chairman GORDON. I understand and I am sympathetic with Mr. 

Neugebauer’s interest here. The problem is that reducing the 

match from 50 to 30 doesn’t save any money but it does make the 

money go further, and that was the original reason that we had the 

match in, because this 50 percent match is significantly higher 

than any other NSF match, but we wanted to make our money go 

further. By reducing it 50 to 30, as I say, doesn’t save it. And this 

was my recommendation that we take it from 50 to 30, and let me 

explain why. 

Again, with the best intentions, we wanted to have this 50 percent match, but then we found that the number of schools that participated was limited. It was really more elite schools. And for example, Mr. Neugebauer, your Texas Tech probably is in a better 

position to take advantage of 50/50 where Lubbock Christian University probably couldn’t do it, and the same thing with Mr. Inglis. 

The University of South Carolina could probably take advantage of 

a 50/50 match but not the University of South Carolina at San 

Marcos, and the same thing with Grand Valley State University in 

Mr. Ehlers’ district. And so we heard from a variety of what you 

might call, you know, smaller universities that said that they want 

to participate, they have good students there but the 50 percent 

match was beyond it. So that is the reason we took it back to 30. 

Again, it doesn’t save any money, it just makes more institutions 

eligible. And I yield to Mr. Neugebauer. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Well, thank you, and of course, as the distinguished Chairman is aware, these schools can use in-kind as part 

of their match as well, but I think these are—this is a worthy program but again, I just don’t know how much additional monies that 

we will be able to dedicate to this program. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
366 

Chairman GORDON. Reclaiming my time. The good news is, it is 

no additional money because reducing the match from 50 to 30 

does not reduce the amount that is being, you know, allocated here. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Well, but if you reduce the match, then there 

is less funds to go to the research programs. 

Chairman GORDON. Well, no, it is the same amount of money, it 

is just what you would accomplish is, it would spread it out further 

because people would be using a 50 percent match rather than a 

30 percent match. In other words, if you had a dollar or if you had 

$10 that was going to be spent and if it was a 50 percent match, 

you are going to make that go into $15. A 30 percent match makes 

it go, you know, to $13. And so you do spread the money out more, 

but in doing so, you limit the number of institutions that can participate, and so what we were trying to accomplish here, and again, 

we are on the same wavelength because this match is way above 

anything else at NSF, so we were trying to accomplish your goal. 

After three years and the response that we have gotten back from 

it, it seems that a better approach is to continue to spread the 

money by virtue of them having some skin in the game but not 

leave out, you know, Lubbock Christian University and others, and 

even though they can use their matching, you don’t necessarily can 

get up to the full amount with matching. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I still don’t understand how if you increase the 

participation of NSF to 70 percent, how you make the money—from 

50 to 70, how you make the money go further. 

Chairman GORDON. Well, it is a finite amount of money. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I mean, it looks like to me you are going to 

cut the participation because you are increasing—the money you 

are spending and you are decreasing what the university got 

but—— 

Chairman GORDON. No, it still—— 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. It is a finite amount of money. I get that part. 

But if I am paying 50 percent—if I am in a partnership and I am 

paying 50 percent of the losses and then all of a sudden now I am 

paying 70 percent of the losses, you know, I am paying a larger 

portion and so maybe you and I need to sit down and walk through 

that with me but I don’t—that is a match I am not understanding. 

Chairman GORDON. Well, the good news is, there are no losses 

here. They are all benefits. But again, there is a finite amount of 

money that is in the program, X amount of money that is in the 

program, and so if you had 100 percent match—or rather, excuse 

me, if you had zero match, it would still be the same amount of 

money. If you had a 10 percent, 20, you know, it is the same 

amount of money that is in the NSF budget. The question is just 

how far can it be spread among various institutions. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I think when you go to the 70, you are saying 

finite amount of money but you are going to leave less money—I 

mean, there has got to be a shrinkage somewhere. If you decrease 

the match from outside and you increase your expenditure, there 

has got to be a decrease somewhere. 

Chairman GORDON. Well, the decrease is, there will be less institutions that can participate. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. And so is that a good—is that the right direction to go? 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
367 

Chairman GORDON. I think it is—well, I mean, if all you want 

is the big hotshot schools doing it, then, you know, make it a 90 

percent match. If you want to have Lubbock Christian, you know, 

schools and other regular schools to participate, you need to get it 

lowered. That is what we have learned from our various hearings 

and feedback in the program. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. The Chair will recognize Dr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not clear precisely 

what the objective is of this. I assume that it is because states by 

and large are in very difficult circumstances, and this is an attempt 

to allow them to get into the game with less match. But the real 

problem is generally not from university to university but state to 

state, and I don’t see anything in this that provides more money 

for states that are on the verge of bankruptcy such as Michigan, 

perhaps California. I am not sure what their latest data says. But 

I know in Michigan we are by far the worst of the states in terms 

of unemployment figures, in terms of the state budget and so forth. 

So this effort to reduce the amount of match required or perhaps 

increase the federal share would be certainly welcomed in Michigan 

and a number of other states. If we are trying to achieve some sort 

of equity, then I think we should do that directly. It is not clear 

to me that that is going to be impact of the bill the way it is written now, and perhaps someone can clarify if I am wrong in that, 

but it seems to me if you are really concerned about the states not 

having the money, then the allocation of the funds for this should 

be based on the financial condition of the state that the money is 

going to. I would appreciate— 

Chairman GORDON. If the gentleman would yield, it is not a matter of states. It is institutions. Some institutions are private. Some 

are state. But it is not state—well, it will be indirect state dollars. 

It is the institution that having to decide to what kind of priority 

this is. And so again, I think that it does provide incentives for 

those states, those institutions that are less well off because many 

of them can’t participate at a 50/50 match and now at a 30/70 

match, they will be. So I think it accomplishes yours, and again, 

if you want to—I mean, how do you determine what state is—if you 

want to do it by unemployment, do you want to do it by the amount 

of debt. Debt might, you know—do you want to do it—I mean I 

don’t know what other kind of demarcation line or what other kind 

of way you are going to use to say who is worthy and who is not. 

Mr. EHLERS. Well, frankly, it wouldn’t matter in the case of 

Michigan. No matter what measure you use, we are still at the bottom. So I am concerned about what happens not just to the state 

universities but the private ones as well. Everyone gets hit by this. 

Chairman GORDON. Well, the good news is, as Mr. Neugebauer 

pointed out earlier, they can use in-kind matches too. 

Mr. EHLERS. Yes, and if we only lived in Texas, we would have 

lots of money, of course. Yield back. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Is there any further discussion on the 

amendment? 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I don’t have any more time. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Mr. Neugebauer? 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. If I could get somebody to yield me. You know, 

I have to go back. I am a visual learner, but let us just use a proVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00373 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
368 

gram here and we have got $10 for these grants, okay? And so we 

are doing two grants right now. We are doing $5 each one of those. 

That is the matching part and so the other partner has to come up 

with $5. So that is $10. So now we go to 70/30. Now we are going 

to put in $7 and that person that was putting in $5 before now 

puts in $3 and now the other person that is getting the grant, we 

only have $3 to match with that and so that grant basically falls 

out unless they can come up with the—so that puts that person 

coming up with the $7 match for $3. See, I think this shrinks the 

program, and that is the match that I am looking at. 

Chairman GORDON. If the gentleman would yield, I mean, once again, there is about $50 million that goes into this program and 

so whether it is a 10 percent match, a 90 percent match, it doesn’t 

matter what the match is, there are no more federal dollars going 

into the program. As I mentioned earlier, the bigger the match, the 

more you can spread it across the country. The question is again, 

do you want it all going to Texas Tech or do you want Lubbock 

Christian University to be able to— 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. See, I think the more the match, you reduce 

the number of grants that you are going to be able to do. That is 

the analogy that I just used. And, you know, the other thing is, I 

haven’t heard from Texas Tech nor Lubbock Christian University 

that this is an issue for them. So I am just wondering if we are 

addressing a problem we don’t have. But secondly, that is going to 

diminish if you have to match more on a per-grant basis. Somebody 

else is going to either be left out or lose a grant because you are 

increasing the match on some of these other ones. 

Chairman GORDON. If the gentleman would yield? But there will 

be no more federal dollars spent. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. That is not the point. The point here is that 

we are going to diminish how many people are going to be able to 

participate in the program, and because we are going to pay more 

and there is going to be less dollars for other grants. 

Chairman GORDON. Well, if the gentleman would yield, the way 

it works, again, there is $50 million. You know, an institution may 

get a—or let us just say they have got a $1,220 grant. Well, it just 

means you can give the same number of $1,000 grants out. The difference is that the university will be putting up $300 or 30 percent 

rather than 50 percent, so you can still do the same number of 

grants. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. No, because you were given 100 and now they 

are changing the ratio so you are going to have to come up with— 

Chairman GORDON. No, that is the university. So again, the NSF 

can give the same number of grants. It is just that the universities 

will be putting up less money. So again, if you were going to do 

$1,000 grants, you can still do that. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. If the university has got $100,000, I understand that, they may be able to get more grants but we will have 

less capacity because we have increased the amount of— 

Chairman GORDON. No, the only—if there is a ‘‘lesser’’ in any of 

this, the lesser is that the university is putting up less money and 

so maybe they can cover less students there. But it doesn’t reduce 

the amount of—there is a finite number in the budget for this so 

it doesn’t reduce the budget deficit at all. It doesn’t reduce the 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
369 

amount that schools can participate. It is just going to reduce the 

amount that they put in. So again, if it $100,000 that you are putting into a university, and they have to do a $30,000 match, then 

you will have $130,000 for the university to deal with there. If it 

is a $50,000 match, then they have $150,000. But that is on the 

university level. No less grants, no less federal dollars being spent. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. The Chair recognizes Dr. Baird. 

Mr. BAIRD. I am not sure it is worth dragging this out too much 

longer but the fundamental issue I think the Chairman is getting 

at, which actually I am sympathetic to and I have heard from some 

of my universities on, is there are some universities that have big 

endowments, large budgets, et cetera, and they come from states 

that are well funded and there are others that are less so and yet 

the merits of offering this opportunity to people should not be 

based on whether or not they are fortunate enough to go to the 

well-funded universities. It should be based on their merit and the 

need to train this body of research. The Chairman’s point is one I 

have heard from some of my universities, is that the match makes 

it prohibitively expensive for certain universities and not for others, and then you will concentrate that federal dollar. So it is not 

necessarily—I think the debate is not necessarily, are you getting 

more people into the program. I think that is what Mr. Neugebauer 

is raising the question on, and I think Mr. Gordon is saying, are 

you getting more institutions into the question, and I think the latter is the goal, as I understand it, of this amendment and it is certainly what I have heard from my institutions. And so I am not 

sure, I won’t venture into the waters of this ‘more people’ argument 

but I think the ‘more institutions’ argument does have merit and 

that I think would be the net impact of the Chairman’s amendment. I have actually heard from some of my institutions that they 

would appreciate that. I yield back. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Any further discussion? If no, the vote will 

occur on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Those opposed, no. 

The no’s have it. The amendment is not agreed to. 

The sixth amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 

the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Johnson. Are you ready to proceed 

with your amendment? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 100, amendment to the Committee Print offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the 

gentlelady for five minutes to explain the amendment. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My amendment addresses the National Science Foundation’s proposal in the fiscal year 2011 budget to consolidate the Historically 

Black Colleges and Universities Undergraduate program, the Tribal Colleges and Universities program and the Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation program into a single undergraduate broadening participation program. I am concerned that 

the effectiveness of the individual programs and their ability to 

serve the unique needs of the different types of minority-serving inVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00375 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
370 

stitutions and underrepresented groups will be lost under a single 

umbrella program. Therefore, my amendment prohibits the National Science Foundation from moving forward with the consolidation program in 2011 and requires the development of a detailed 

plan clarifying the objectives and rationale for such a consolidation. 

My amendment requires that input from the relevant stakeholders 

including minority-serving institutions are considered in the development of any consolidated program. The process for the inclusion 

and development of the consolidated program in fiscal year 2011 

budget was not transparent. As my colleagues know, in order for 

any program to be successful, it needs a buy-in from the stakeholder community. 

Additionally, the National Science Foundation must consider the 

forthcoming recommendations from the National Academies’ study 

on expanding the STEM workforce to include more underrepresented minorities than we we required in the 2007 COMPETES 

Act. In order to maintain the competitiveness of our Nation, we 

need to produce more scientists and engineers to fill the growing 

number of technical jobs but we will find it much more difficult to 

develop the well-trained STEM workforce we need if we continue 

to overlook significant portions of the talent pool. We need to do a 

better job of developing all of the STEM talent the Nation has to 

offer, especially in light of the changing demographics of our Nation. 

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the percentage of the 

college population that is currently represented by minorities will 

grow to 55 percent in 2050. If we are to ensure an adequate STEM 

workforce, we need to increase the number of minority students 

pursuing and obtaining STEM degrees. I am committed to ensuring 

that the National Science Foundation’s broadening participation 

programs are effective, and if we should alter the successful individual programs, we need to develop a well-thought-out plan. 

I am also committed to ensuring the COMPETES Act places 

proper emphasis on embracing the broader participation of U.S. 

citizens in science, technology, engineering and math. To do this, 

we must be proactive. In anticipation for a final markup of this legislation, I look forward to reviewing policy recommendations for 

COMPETES from my colleagues and including the Congressional 

Black Caucus. I will not vote for a bill that does not appropriately 

address minority participation in STEM and I would advise my 

CBC colleagues to vote against it as well. 

I have an additional statement for the record regarding Section 

304 of the Committee Print, and I would like to submit it for the 

record. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. 

Thank you Chairman Lipinski and Ranking Member Ehlers. 

Mr. Chairman, my amendment addresses NSF’s proposal in the FY 2011 budget 

to consolidate the Historically Black Colleges and Universities-Undergraduate Program, the Tribal Colleges and Universities Program, and the Louis Stokes Alliances 

for Minority Participation program into a single undergraduate broadening participation program. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
371 

I am concerned that the effectiveness of the individual programs and their ability 

to serve the unique needs of the different types of minority serving institutions and 

underrepresented groups will be lost under a single umbrella program. 

Therefore, my amendment prohibits NSF from moving forward with the consolidated program in FY 2011 and requires the development of detailed plan clarifying 

the objectives and rationale for such a consolidation. 

My amendment requires that input from the relevant stakeholders, including minority serving institutions, are considered in the development of any consolidated 

program. The process for the inclusion and development of the consolidated program 

in the FY 2011 budget was not transparent. As my colleagues know, in order for 

any program to be successful it needs buy-in from the stakeholder community. 

Additionally, NSF must consider the forthcoming recommendations from the National Academies’ study on expanding the STEM workforce to include more underrepresented minorities that we required in the 2007 COMPETES Act. 

In order to maintain the competitiveness of our Nation we need to produce more 

scientists and engineers to fill the growing number of technical jobs. But we will 

find it much more difficult to develop the well-trained STEM workforce we need if 

we continue to overlook significant portions of the talent pool. 

We need to do a better job of developing ALL of the STEM talent the Nation has 

to offer, especially in light of the changing demographics of our Nation. According 

to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the percent of the college population that is currently represented by minorities will grow to 55 percent by 2050. If we are to ensure 

an adequate STEM workforce we need to increase the number of minority students 

pursuing and attaining STEM degrees. 

I am committed to ensuring that NSF’s broadening participation programs are effective and if we should alter these successful individual programs we need to develop well-thought out plan. 

I also am committed to ensuring the COMPETES Act places proper emphasis on 

embracing the broader participation of U.S. citizens in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. To do this, we must be proactive. In anticipation for a 

final markup of this legislation I look forward to reviewing policy recommendations 

for COMPETES from my colleagues on the Congressional Black Caucus. 

I will not vote for a bill that does not appropriately address minority participation 

in STEM and I would advise my CBC colleagues to vote against it too. 

I have an additional statement for the record regarding section 304 of the committee print and I would like to submit it for the record. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the remainder of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE

JOHNSON

For eighteen years as a Member of the committee on Science and Technology, I 

have attended hearings dealing with minority participation. I have been to these 

hearings where recommendations were made for NSF to rapidly increase the number of undergraduate and graduate scholarships to persons from underrepresented 

groups in STEM. I have heard advice from our Nation’s top experts in academia 

calling for active recruitment, mentoring, and community building. I do not see 

those recommendations in this bill. I see a few small additions here or there, however, there is no comprehensive section on minority participation. 

Additionally, a provision exists in this bill that labels schools that serve disabled 

as Minority Serving Institutions (MSI). Arguing that an institution for the disabled 

should be a minority serving institution is in effect creating a catch-all category that 

ignores the individualized needs of these institutions. These institutions do not 

serve the same populations. They each have their own strengths and weaknesses. 

The Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering recommends 

in its 2007–2008 Biennial Report to Congress that ‘‘institutions such as Gallaudet, 

National. Technical Institute for the Deaf, Landmark College, and others should 

have a designation similar to Minority Serving Institutions (MSI).’’ I fully support 

education for the disabled and believe we should have a category designated specifically for the needs of those institutions. 

Moreover, I do like the tone of this bill and I do not like the tone of NSF. We 

cannot simply throw all minorities and their programs into one giant category. Our 

nation’s HBCUs were founded for the purpose of educating African Americans prior 

to the desegregation era. This is written in their mission statement. For decades 

these institutions were deprived the funding and resources of their counter parts. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
372 

Historically Black Colleges and Universities graduate students in STEM degrees 

at a higher rate than most traditional universities and currently are conducting 

world-class research in AIDS and Cancer research. I will not allow these institutions, which are gems of our society to be weakened. We must do what we can to 

help and protect minority serving institutions. 

If we are dedicated to promoting and graduating minority scientists we must address,the needs of these institutions. This measure takes away from their funding 

by creating a bigger pool with institutions that have completely different needs. Additionally, the statue dilutes what is considered a minority serving institution and 

creates a dangerous precedent. 

NSF is required to report to congress what they are doing to reach out to minorities. They ignore this requirement. I want this report. NSF also should listen to 

CEOSE recommendations and ‘‘consider conducting a comprehensive review of impact evaluation findings on its broadening participation programs, use the review 

to determine and document what works and what does not.’’ 

We have an obligation to the future of our Nation to assure every segment of our 

population has equal access and opportunity to pursue careers in STEM. As Coretta 

Scott King once said, ‘‘Struggle is a never-ending process. Freedom is never really 

won. You earn it and win it in every generation.’’ The America COMPETES Reauthorization should be used as a vehicle toward achieving parity in the sciences for 

women and underrepresented minorities. 

As this committee heads toward a final markup, I will not vote for a bill that does 

not appropriately address minority participation in STEM and I would advise my 

CBC colleagues to vote against it too. 

This is America COMPETES, and it must include all Americans. Different Americans and different institutions have separate needs. This bill ignores that. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Without objection, so ordered. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the remainder of my time. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. The Chair recognizes Dr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank my colleague for offering this amendment. I must confess, when we were 

holding the hearings in this subcommittee and I raised an issue 

about the same—I raised the same issue and asked for justification 

for the recommendation, I was not convinced that they had thoroughly considered the issue and I think I apparently left the meeting with the same feelings that my colleague from Texas has on 

this issue, that they just hadn’t thought it through as fully as they 

might have. So I support the amendment and I would like to see 

in writing the justification for the plan and just exactly how it 

would work. 

I am not necessarily opposed to what the Director is recommending, but I didn’t think we were given enough information, and 

Ms. Johnson’s amendment would take care of that and give us the 

information we need to make a valid judgment. Yield back. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Any further discussion on the amendment? 

The Chair recognizes himself. 

Again, I want to thank Ms. Johnson for her work on this issue. 

I think there may be some value in leveraging the common objectives and successful components of the individual programs but the 

process for the formation of the consolidated program was not 

transparent and I cannot be supportive of consolidation without 

sufficient detail about how the program will be administered. We 

need to increase the number of individuals from underrepresented 

groups who are pursuing STEM degrees. We all agree to that. We 

need to do this through a thorough, effective program. I look forward to seeing a more detailed and more broadly supported plan 

from the Foundation next year. I urge my colleagues to support 

this amendment. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
373 

Is there any further discussion on the amendment? If not, we 

will have a vote on the amendment. All those in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. The seventh amendment on the roster is an 

amendment offered by the gentlelady from Ohio. Are you ready to 

proceed with your amendment? 

Ms. FUDGE. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 

desk. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 059, amendment to the Committee Print offered by Ms. Fudge of Ohio. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the 

gentlelady for five minutes to explain the amendment. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, my amendment to the Committee Print of the 

National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2010 seeks to improve the state of research on preK–12 STEM education. It requires the NSF and the Department of Education to work together 

to identify grand challenges in education research. It also requires 

them to determine their respective roles in funding this crucial research and in disseminating the results of this research to teachers 

and other education practitioners. 

One of the most common complaints we hear from stakeholders 

in the STEM education community is that research on the teaching 

and learning of STEM education is too siloed. It does not always 

look at some of the big questions that, if answered, have the greatest potential for improving preK–12 STEM education. The NSF 

and the Department of Education both invest in STEM education 

research and each brings its own mission and own strengths to this 

purpose. However, there is merit in having the two agencies collaborate in identifying grand challenges in education research, and 

them determining what specific roles each of these two agencies 

should play in addressing those grant challenges. We all know that 

in order to effectively reform STEM education, it is necessary to 

apply the latest research findings on how students learn. Though 

we may know a great deal on how individual subsections of our society are best taught, critical gaps in education research remain. 

Collaboration is essential to fill these gaps. 

Specifically, this amendment instructs the Secretary of Education 

and Director of the NSF to consider six key research topics: the 

scalability, sustainability and replication of successful STEM activities, the challenges and opportunities to improve the teaching and 

learning of STEM, the characteristics of effective STEM teachers 

and STEM teacher professional development programs, how cyberenabled tools and programs influence learning and teaching in 

STEM, STEM teaching and learning in informal environments, and 

how integrating engineering with mathematics and science education may improve learning of math and science, increase student 

increase and persistence in STEM, or improve student understanding of engineering designs, principles and of the built world. 

It is critical that the research we are funding speaks to the needs 

of teachers and students across all parts of the country. For that 

reason, this amendment instructions the NSF and the Department 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
374 

of Education to solicit input from a variety of stakeholders throughout this process. By enabling stakeholders to inform the NSF and 

the Department of Education on the needs of the STEM community, we will ensure that the research performed is relevant and 

useful. 

The legislation also requires that the agencies provide a report 

to Congress with a description of the grand challenges they have 

identified, the respective role of each agency in addressing them, 

the common metrics that will be used to evaluate progress towards 

meeting these goals and most importantly, how the agencies will 

disseminate their research results to practitioners and other federal and non-federal funders of STEM education. This is an important element of the legislation, since research findings and best 

practices will be of no use if they do not make their way into the 

hands of those teaching our Nation’s students. 

This is an important amendment and one that will ensure that 

our tax dollars are funding the most relevant and useful STEM 

education research, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. 

Chairman, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Fudge follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE MARCIA L. FUDGE

My amendment to the Committee Print of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2010 seeks to improve the state of research on preK–12 STEM 

education. It requires the NSF and the Department of Education to work together 

to identify grand challenges in education research. It also requires them to determine their respective roles in funding this crucial research and in disseminating the 

results of this research to teachers and other education practitioners. 

One of the most common complaints we hear from stakeholders in the STEM education community is that research on the teaching and learning of STEM education 

is too siloed. It does not always look at some of the big questions that, if answered, 

have the greatest potential for improving preK–12 STEM education. The NSF and 

the Department of Education both invest in STEM education research, and each 

brings its own mission and own strengths to this purpose. However, there is merit 

in having the two agencies collaborate in identifying grand challenges in education 

research, and then determining what specific role each of these two agencies should 

play in addressing those grand challenges. 

We all know that in order to effectively reform STEM education, it is necessary 

to apply the latest research findings on how students learn. Though we may know 

a great deal on how individual subsections of our society are best taught, critical 

gaps in education research remain. Collaboration is essential to fill these gaps. 

Specifically, this amendment instructs the Secretary of Education and Director of 

the NSF to consider six key research topics: 

• the scalability, sustainability, and replication of successful STEM activities, 

• the challenges and opportunities to improve the teaching and learning of 

STEM, 

• the characteristics of effective STEM teachers and STEM teacher professional 

development programs, 

• how cyber-enabled tools and programs influence learning and teaching in 

STEM 

• STEM teaching and learning in informal environments, and 

• how integrating engineering with mathematics and science education may: 

improve learning of math and science, increase student interest and persistence in STEM, or improve student understanding of engineering design principles and of the built world. 

It is crucial that the research we are funding speaks to the needs of teachers and 

students across all parts of the country. For that reason, this amendment instructs 

the NSF and the Department of Education to solicit input from a variety of stakeholders throughout this process. By enabling stakeholders to inform the NSF and 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
375 

Department of Education on the needs of the STEM community, we will ensure that 

the research performed is relevant and useful. 

The legislation also requires that the agencies provide a report to Congress with 

a description of the grand challenges they have identified, the respective role of each 

agency in addressing them, the common metrics that will be used to evaluate 

progress toward meeting those goals, and most importantly, how the agencies will 

disseminate their research results to practitioners and other Federal and non-federal funders of STEM education. This is an important element of the legislation, 

since research findings and best practices will be of no use if they do not make their 

way into the hands of those teaching our Nation’s students. 

This is an important amendment and one that will ensure that our tax dollars 

are finding the most relevant and useful STEM education research, and I urge my 

colleagues to support it. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. The Chair recognizes Dr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I commend my colleague from Ohio for the amendment. I can’t judge based on what 

I have heard whether all of my concerns will be addressed, but I 

certainly support her amendment and I would like to have some 

discussions with her before the final markup. 

Let me say as an example, some of the best research done on 

learning about how children learn has been done in the National 

Institutes of Health, and clearly that research has to be studied by 

the Department of Education and the NSF, but I am not sure they 

have the capability to really examine that, and perhaps we need 

more people at the table. I was struck some years ago when we 

were working on these issues, and I have spent 30 years of my preCongress life working on STEM education, about 10 years while 

here, and it is a very complex issue with a lot of different participants, and I really think we have to have—well, the example I was 

going to use, there was someone at the Department of Education 

who was put in charge of this and they had a meeting every other 

week, and at the end of the study that was going on, and it was 

very informal and I attended a number of them. I was amazed, we 

got 80 participants attending from about seven or eight departments. There is a huge interest in this topic. And so if the 

gentlelady is willing to discuss this with me between now and our 

next hearing on this, the Full Committee hearing, we may be able 

to come to an understanding of how broadly this has to be done or 

how it has to be managed so that all these different ideas are fairly 

represented in the work that is done by NSF and the Department 

of Education. 

Ms. FUDGE. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. EHLERS. Yes. 

Ms. FUDGE. I would be happy to, Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you very much. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Any further discussion on the amendment? 

The Chair will recognize himself. 

I want to thank Ms. Fudge for this amendment. This is certainly 

an issue that we heard about in hearings, I heard in listening sessions that I have held. Just last week in Chicago this exact issue 

was brought up about having a good education research portfolio 

on STEM education, how to effectively scale up and replicate successful models. We know that they are out there. I think more 

should be done in order to make sure that these do get around and 

we do as much as we can to improve STEM education, so I thank 

Ms. Fudge for her amendment and I will support the amendment. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
376 

Is there any further discussion? If no, a vote will occur on the 

amendment. All in favor, say aye. All opposed, say no. The ayes 

have it and the amendment is agreed to. 

The eighth amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 

the gentleman from New York. Are you ready to proceed with your 

amendment? 

Mr. TONKO. Yes, I am, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment at the 

desk. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 025, amendment to the Committee Print offered by Mr. Tonko of New York. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain the amendment. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

This amendment seeks to improve opportunities for undergraduate students to participate in hands-on scientific research. 

There is significant attrition in many of the STEM fields, particularly during the undergraduate years, and it is therefore critical 

that we find ways to increase student interest and student achievement in STEM throughout college. 

In February, this subcommittee held a hearing on the need to 

strengthen undergraduate and graduate STEM education. In that 

hearing, we heard repeatedly of the important role that research 

experiences can play in contributing to the quality of the undergraduate experience. Research experiences can provide a context in 

what students are being taught in the classroom and can give them 

a better understanding of what it means to be a scientist or what 

it means to be an engineer. However, many undergraduate students simply do not have the opportunity to participate in handson research. 

This amendment requires the Director of NSF to award grants 

to colleges, universities or nonprofits to establish sites that will 

provide research experiences to undergrad STEM students. These 

research experiences for undergraduate, or REU sites, are required 

to serve at least 10 undergraduate students with at least half of 

the students coming from colleges or universities where such research opportunities are limited. The amendment also requires 

that students participating in an REU site program have mentors 

to help encourage them throughout the research experience and beyond. 

This amendment also requires NSF to change its policy for including undergraduate students in standard Foundation research 

grants. Rather than applying for supplemental funding to include 

undergraduates in NSF-funded research, this amendment would 

encourage researchers to integrate undergraduate students into 

their research projects from the very beginning. This ensures the 

student is fully integrated into that research team while also providing the researcher with the workforce needed to carry out her 

or his research. 

This amendment helps provide valuable research experiences to 

undergraduate students and therefore I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:] 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
377 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE PAUL D. TONKO

This amendment seeks to improve opportunities for undergraduate students to 

participate in hands-on scientific research. 

There is significant attrition in many of the STEM fields, particularly during the 

undergraduate years, and it is critical that we find ways to increase student interest 

and achievement in STEM throughout college. 

In February our Subcommittee held a hearing on the need to strengthen undergraduate and graduate STEM education. In that hearing, we heard repeatedly of 

the important role research experiences can play in contributing to the quality of 

the undergraduate experience. Research experiences can provide a context to what 

the student is being taught in the classroom and can give them a better understanding of what it means to be a scientist or engineer. However, many undergraduate students do not have the opportunity to participate in hands-on research. 

This amendment requires the Director of NSF to award grants to colleges, universities, or non-profits to establish sites that will provide research experiences to undergraduate STEM students. These Research Experiences for Undergraduate (REU) 

sites are required to serve at least ten undergraduate students, with at least half 

of the students coming from colleges or universities where such research opportunities are limited. The amendment also requires that students participating in a REU 

sites program have mentors to help encourage them throughout their research experience and beyond. 

This amendment also requires NSF to change their policy for including undergraduate students in standard Foundation research grants. Rather than applying 

for supplemental funding to include undergraduates in NSF-funded research, this 

amendment would encourage researchers to integrate undergraduate students into 

their research projects from the beginning. This ensures the student is fully integrated into the research team, while also providing the researcher with the workforce needed to carry out his or her research. 

This amendment helps provide valuable research experiences to undergraduate 

students and I urge my colleagues to support it. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Tonko. 

Is there further discussion? Dr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, another good amendment, and I am happy to support it. It is very useful. I taught at 

a small college and we had a program exactly like this, and it literally changed the life of the students to be able to participate with 

professors in very important research programs right from the 

start. Yield back. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Any further discussion? 

Mr. BAIRD. I just want to commend the author of this. Last 

evening Dr. Ehlers and I and maybe some additional colleagues 

were fortunate enough to attend the Council for Undergraduate Research reception where they had poster sessions from all sorts of 

different projects, really brilliant young people from around the 

country, many of them actually from community colleges and other 

institutions where undergraduate research is not usually accessible, but that is what catapults these young people into careers, 

and I share Dr. Ehlers’ commendation of our friend, Mr. Tonko, for 

his leadership in this, and I am sure there will be people around 

this country, young people who will benefit from this. I commend 

you for your initiative. 

Mr. EHLERS. Will the gentleman yield? I would also like to commend Dr. Baird for the award he received at that particular event. 

Congratulations. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Any further discussion on the amendment? 

I would like to thank Mr. Tonko for his amendment. As Dr. Ehlers 

and Dr. Baird said, we all know, we have had our own experiences, 

we have certainly heard from a lot of people how critical it is to 

have these types of experiences and they are not often available. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
378 

The more we can make them available, the better off we certainly 

will be in the STEM fields. 

So if there is no further discussion, we will have a vote on the 

amendment. All those in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes 

have it and the amendment is agreed to. 

Are there any other amendments? If no, then the vote is on the 

Committee Print as amended. All those in favor will say aye. All 

those opposed will say no. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes 

have it. 

I now recognize myself to offer a motion. I move that the Subcommittee favorably report the Committee Print, as amended, to 

the Full Committee. Furthermore, I move that staff be instructed 

to prepare the Subcommittee Report and make necessary technical 

and conforming changes to the Print in accordance with the recommendations of the Subcommittee. 

The question is on the motion to report the Print favorably. 

Those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. Opposed, 

no. The ayes have it and the print is favorably reported. 

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

Members will have two subsequent calendar days in which to submit supplemental minority or additional views on the measure. 

I want to thank all the Members for their attendance and participation at today’s markup, and this concludes today’s Subcommittee 

markup. 

[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
(379) 

Appendix: 

COMMITTEE PRINT, SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS, AMENDMENT

ROSTER


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
380 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11a.eps
381 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11b.eps
382 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11c.eps
383 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11d.eps
384 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11e.eps
385 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11f.eps
386 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11g.eps
387 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11h.eps
388 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11i.eps
389 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11j.eps
390 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11k.eps
391 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11l.eps
392 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11m.eps
393 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11n.eps
394 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11o.eps
395 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11p.eps
396 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11q.eps
397 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11r.eps
398 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11s.eps
399 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11t.eps
400 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11u.eps
401 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11v.eps
402 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11w.eps
403 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11x.eps
404 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11y.eps
405 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11z.eps
406 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF

THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2010 

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS—The National Science Foundation 

Authorization Act of 2010; table of contents. 

Title I—General Provisions 

SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS—Provides definitions for terms used in this Act. 

SEC. 102. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS—Authorizes $47.5 billion for 

the National Science Foundation (NSF) for fiscal years 2011–2015, including $38 billion for research and related activities (R&RA), $6.4 billion for education and 

human resources (EHR), and $1.2 billion for major research equipment and facilities 

construction (MREFC). 

SEC. 103. ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS—Eliminates the cap on the number 

of professional staff for the National Science Board (‘‘the Board’’). Changes the date 

on which the Board’s biennial Science and Engineering Indicators is due to the 

President and Congress. Modifies the scope of reports the Board may submit to the 

President and Congress. Modifies audit requirement for Board adherence to the 

Sunshine Act. 

SEC. 104. BROADER IMPACTS REVIEW CRITERION—Clarifies the intent of the 

Foundation’s Broader Impacts Review Criterion. Requires the Director to develop 

and implement a Foundation-wide policy that: includes a plan to educate Foundation staff, merit review panels, and grant applicants on the goals of the broader impacts review criterion; encourages colleges, universities and other organizations 

such as science ‘‘ museums to help NSF-funded investigators achieve the goals of 

the broader impacts review criterion through existing evidence-based programs and 

activities; and requires grant applicants to provide evidence of such institutional 

support for the portion of their proposal intended to satisfy the broader impact review criterion. 

Title II—Research and Innovation 

SEC. 201. SUPPORT FOR POTENTIALLY TRANFORMATIVE RESEARCH—Requires the Director to apply at least 5 percent of the agency’s research toward 

highrisk, high-reward basic research. Provide a definition for ‘‘high-risk, high-reward’’ and examples for how the Director may meet the 5 percent requirement. 

SEC. 202. FACILITATING INTERDISCIPLINARY COLLABORATIONS FOR NATIONAL NEEDS—Requires the Director to provide awards for interdisciplinary research collaborations that are designed to address critical challenges to national security, competitiveness, and societal well-being. 

SEC. 203. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION MANUFACTURING RESEARCH—Requires the Director to carry out a program to award competitive 

grants for manufacturing research. 

SEC. 204. STRENGTHENING INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH PARTNERSHIPS— 

In cases where a research grant involves a partnership of colleges and universities, 

including a minority-serving institution or a predominately undergraduate institution, the Director is required to award funds to at least two of the institutions directly, including at least one minority-serving or predominately undergraduate institution. 

SEC. 205. NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD REPORT ON MID-SCALE INSTRUMENTATION—Requires the Board to evaluate the need for mid-scale research instrumentation (instrumentation that falls between the Major Research Instrumentation 

program and the Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction program), 

and provide recommendations regarding how the Foundation can best address those 

needs. 

SEC. 206. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON OVERALL SUPPORT FOR RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE AT THE FOUNDATION—Expresses the sense of Congress that 

the Foundation should strive to keep the percentage of the Foundation budget devoted to research infrastructure in the range of 24 to 27 percent, as recommended 

in the 2003 National Science Board report, ‘‘Science and Engineering Infrastructure 

for the 21st Century.’’ 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
407 

Title III—STEM Education and Workforce Training 

SEC. 301. GRADUATE STUDENT SUPPORT—Requires the Director to increase or 

decrease funding for the Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship 

(IGERT) program at the same rate as the Graduate Research Fellowship (GRF) program. Requires that at least half of the total funds for IGERT and GRF come from 

the R&RA account. Requires the Director to increase the current cost of education 

allowance for awards made through the GRF program by $1,500. 

SEC. 302. POSTDOCTORAL FELLOWSHIP IN STEM EDUCATION RESEARCH— 

Requires the Director to establish a postdoctoral fellowship program to encourage 

recent doctoral degree graduates in the STEM fields to pursue STEM education research and become leaders in STEM education reform. 

SEC. 303. ROBERT NOYCE TEACHER SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM—Amends current law to remove the requirement that the service obligation of scholarship recipients be performed in a high-need local education agency, and instead provides a 1 

year reduction of the service obligation for scholarship recipients who choose to perform their service in a high-need local education agency. Requires the. Director to 

maintain a clearinghouse of information on teaching opportunities available in highneed local education agencies. Lowers the required amount of institutional matching 

for Noyce grants under Section 10A (master teachers and STEM professionals) from 

50 to 30 percent. 

SEC. 304. INSTITUTIONS SERVING PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES—Designates all institutions of higher education that are chartered to serve large numbers of disabled students as minority-serving institutions for the purposes of NSF 

grants and activities. 

SEC. 305. INSTITUTIONAL INTEGRATION—Requires the Director to award 

grants to colleges and universities for the integration of Foundation funded projects 

at those institutions in order to increase collaboration across funded projects and 

expand the impact of such projects. 

SEC. 306. POSTDOCTORAL RESEARCH FELLOWSHIPS—Requires the Director 

to establish a Foundation-wide postdoctoral research fellowship program, with priority given to proposals for interdisciplinary research and high-risk, high-reward research. 

SEC. 307. BROADENING PARTICIPATION TRAINING AND OUTREACH—Requires the Director to provide education and training to Foundation staff and review 

panels on effective tools for increasing participation in STEM by underrepresented 

groups. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
408 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11aa.eps
409 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11bb.eps
410 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11cc.eps
411 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11dd.eps
412 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11ee.eps
413 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11ff.eps
414 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11gg.eps
415 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11hh.eps
416 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11ii.eps
417 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11jj.eps
418 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11kk.eps
419 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11ll.eps
420 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11mm.eps
421 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11nn.eps
422 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11oo.eps
423 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11pp.eps
424 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11qq.eps
425 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11rr.eps
426 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11ss.eps
427 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11tt.eps
428 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11uu.eps
429 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11vv.eps
430 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11ww.eps
431 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11xx.eps
432 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11yy.eps
433 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11zz.eps
434 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11azz.eps
435 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11bzz.eps
436 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11czz.eps
437 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11dzz.eps
438 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11ezz.eps
439 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11fzz.eps
440 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11gzz.eps
441 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11hzz.eps
442 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11izz.eps
443 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11jzz.eps
444 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11kzz.eps
445 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11lzz.eps
446 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11mzz.eps
447 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu11nzz.eps
448 

PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARKUP BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION ON COMMITTEE PRINT, NATIONAL 

INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2010 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 2010 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:23 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. David Wu [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Chairman WU. The Subcommittee will come to order. Pursuant 

to notice, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation meets 

to consider the following measure: the Committee Print, the National Institute of Standards and Technology Authorization Act of 

2010. I recognize myself for an opening statement. 

Welcome, everyone, for this morning’s markup of the NIST [National Institute of Standards and Technology] portion of the America COMPETES bill. 

When the Subcommittee went through this exercise in 2007, it 

was the first comprehensive authorization of NIST in 15 years. In 

the first version of COMPETES, we put NIST labs on a path to 

double its funding, and we replaced the 20-year-old Advanced Technology Program [ATP] with the Technology Innovation Program, or 

TIP, to focus on small high-tech entrepreneurial firms where technological innovation often occurs. 

However, the first version of COMPETES largely maintained the 

status quo. This new bill moves us forward to focus NIST on meeting the measurement needs of the private sector, supporting competitiveness and creating jobs. 

In the face of ever-increasing global technological and economic 

competition, it is our responsibility in Congress to support hightech manufacturing in the United States. This bill authorizes robust funding for NIST to enable it to meet that goal. It maintains 

the commitment to double funding for the NIST labs and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program, known as MEP, over 

ten years. It also provides authorization for TIP consistent with the 

vision laid out in the original COMPETES Act, enabling it to meet 

its existing obligations and fund up to $40 million in new awards 

each year. This bill elevates the Director of NIST to the level of 

Under Secretary for Technology and Standards in order to inject 

NIST expertise into the Administration’s discussions on innovation, 

standards and support for high-tech growth. 

The current lab structure of ten operating units is 20 years old 

and no longer reflects today’s technology sectors or the inherent 

and increasing multidisciplinary nature of technology. This bill authorizes a lab structure of six operating units to promote efficiency 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
449 

and a cross-disciplinary culture at NIST. The bill also gives the 

NIST Director permission to modify the NIST structure, upon notification to Congress, as technology advances and the needs of the 

private sector change. 

This legislation also structures the Manufacturing Extension 

Partnership to better address the challenges facing our small- and 

medium-sized manufacturers and the revenue challenges facing our 

states. The legislation requires MEP Centers to inform local and 

regional community colleges of the skill sets local manufacturers 

require in their workforce. It creates an innovative services initiative to help small manufacturing improve energy efficiency, use 

new technologies and manufacture high-tech products. It allows the 

Secretary, as he deems appropriate, to modify current cost-share 

requirements as state budgets come under increasing pressure. 

This bill also creates a Bioscience Research Program at NIST to 

develop measurement tools and support research that will open 

new fields in the treatment of disease through personalized medical 

biologics. 

After one Full Committee hearing and three Subcommittee hearings, my Subcommittee has a strong hearing record to support policy objectives for every element in this bill. We also circulated the 

bill text to the witnesses for their comments and suggestions, many 

of which have been incorporated. 

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. 

With that, I will turn to my colleague, Mr. Smith, for his opening 

statement. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Wu follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DAVID WU

I want to, welcome everyone to this morning’s mark-up of the NIST portion of the 

COMPETES bill. 

When the Subcommittee went through this exercise in 2007, it was the first comprehensive authorization of NIST in 15 years. In the first version of COMPETES, 

we put NIST labs on a path to double their funding, and we replaced the 20-yearold Advanced Technology Program with the Technology Innovation Program, or TIP, 

to focus on small, high-tech entrepreneurial firms where technological innovation 

often occurs. 

However, the first version of COMPETES largely maintained the status quo. This 

new bill Moves us forward to focus NEST on meeting the measurement needs of the 

private sector, supporting competitiveness, and creating jobs. 

In the face of ever-increasing global technological and economic competition, it is 

our responsibility in Congress to support high-tech manufacturing in the United 

States. This bill authorizes robust funding for NIST to enable it to meet that goal. 

It maintains the commitment to double funding for the NIST labs and the Manufacturing Extension. Partnership program—known as MEP—over 10 years. it also provides authorization for TIP consistent with the vision laid out in the original COMPETES Act, enabling if to meet its existing obligations and fund up to $40 million 

in new awards each year. This bill elevates the Director of NEST to the level of 

Under Secretary for Technology and Standards in order to inject NEST expertise 

into the Administration’s discussions on innovation, standards, and support for 

high-tech growth. 

The current lab structure of 10 operating units is 20 years old and no longer reflects today’s technology sectors or the inherent and increasing multi-disciplinary 

nature of technology. This bill authorizes a lab structure of six operating units to 

promote efficiency and a cross-disciplinary culture at NIST. The bill also gives the 

NEST Director permission to modify the NIST structure, upon notification to Congress, as technology advances and the needs of the private sector change. 

This legislation also structures the Manufacturing Extension Partnership to better address the challenges facing our small- and medium-sized manufacturers and 

the revenue challenges facing our states. The legislation: 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
450 

1. Requires MEP Centers to inform local and regional community colleges of 

the skill sets local manufacturers require in their workforce; 

2. Creates an innovative services initiative to help small manufacturing improve energy efficiency, use new technologies, and manufacture high-tech 

products; 

3. Allows the Secretary, as he deems appropriate, to Modify current cost-share 

requirements as state budgets come under increasing pressure. 

The legislation also creates a bioscience research program at NIST to develop 

measurement tools and support research that will open new fields in the treatment 

of disease through personalized medical biologics. 

After one, Full Committee hearing and three Subcommittee hearings, my Subcommittee has a strong hearing record to support its policy objectives for every element in this bill. We also circulated the bill text to the witnesses for their comments 

and suggestions, many of which have been incorporated. 

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Chairman Wu, for calling today’s markup 

of legislation to reauthorize the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology, NIST, which will be included in the America 

COMPETES reauthorization we are scheduled to mark up in the 

Full Committee next week. 

I believe there is consensus on the major issues addressed in this 

bill but some questions remain, which I hope we can work through 

if not completely at this markup then certainly at the Full Committee markup. 

NIST is certainly an important and trusted arbiter of standards, 

weights and measures. While the question of reauthorization level 

will be debated, there is no question reauthorization of NIST is 

vital to every sector of our economy. Given NIST’s stature, it is appropriate we elevate the Director of NIST to be an Under Secretary 

of Commerce. In our recent hearing on NIST, our panelists from 

private industry agreed on this point provided the NIST Director 

is not saddled with new duties and continues to concentrate his efforts on running the agency. Likewise, in listening to the Director’s 

testimony and given the constantly changing state of technology, I 

understand his desire to restructure the labs. He does not need 

Congressional authority to do as such, but I appreciate the chairman’s desire to codify reorganization. 

I hope that we will hold appropriate oversight hearings when the 

time is right to ensure this reorganization is adequately achieving 

NIST’s mission, and I believe we share similar goals for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership and for NIST’S role in bioscience 

research, if not agreement on the structure of both programs as 

outlined in the bill. 

With that, I look forward to a constructive markup today and 

working with you further to move toward Full Committee markup 

and floor consideration. I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE ADRIAN SMITH

Thank you, Chairman Wu, for calling today’s markup of legislation to reauthorize 

the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which will be included 

in the America COMPETE’s reauthorization we are scheduled to mark up in the fall 

committee next week. 

I believe there is consensus on the major issues addressed in this bill, but some 

questions remain which I hope we can work through, if not completely at this markup, then at the Full Committee mark-up. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
451 

MST is an important and. trusted arbiter of standards, weights, and measurers. 

While the question of reauthorization level will be debated, there is no question reauthorization of NIST is vital to every sector of our economy. 

Given NIST’s stature, it is appropriate we elevate the Director of NIST to be an 

Under Secretary of Commerce. In our recent hearing on NIST our panelists from 

private industry agreed on this point, provided the NIST director is not saddled 

with new duties and continues to concentrate his efforts on running the agency. 

Likewise, in listening to the Director’s testimony, and given the constantly changing state of technology, I understand his desire to restructure the labs. He does not 

need. Congressional authority to do such, but I appreciate the Chairman’s desire to 

codify the reorganization. I hope that we will hold appropriate oversight hearings 

when the time is right to ensure this reorganization is adequately achieving NIST’s 

mission. 

And I believe we share similar goals for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership 

and for NIST’s role in bioscience research, if not agreement on the structure of both 

programs as outlined in the bill. 

With that, I look forward to a constructive markup today and to working with you 

further as move toward Full Committee markup and floor consideration. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman WU. Thank you very much, Mr. Smith. 

Does anyone else wish to be recognized for a statement? 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mitchell follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE HARRY E. MITCHELL

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Today we will mark up the Committee Print of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Authorization Act. 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a laboratory of the 

Department of Commerce, plays a crucial role in advancing U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by establishing measurement standards, calibration services, and quality assurance techniques that are critical to U.S. commerce. 

Among other things, this legislation would establish a Bioscience Research Program at NIST, tasked with supporting the research and development of measurements, standards, methods, and other date to advance bioscience research, including 

biological drug research and development. 

Establishing a system to bring low-cost, generic forms of biologic medicines to the 

market is critical. A pathway for ‘‘follow-on’’ biologics is important for treating various medical conditions, including illnesses for which no other treatments are currently available. 

Furthermore, the support of basic measurement science research in the biomedical sector could lead to more accurate and efficient medical, testing as well as 

significant savings within the health care sector. 

At this time, I yield back. 

If not, I ask unanimous consent that the print be considered as 

read and open to amendment at any point and that the Members 

proceed with amendments in the order of the roster. Without objection, so ordered. 

The first amendment on the roster is a Manager’s Amendment 

offered by the Chair. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 271, Manager’s Amendment to 

Committee Print, offered by Mr. Wu of Oregon. 

Chairman WU. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the 

reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize myself for five 

minutes to explain the amendment. 

The Manager’s Amendment makes two changes to section 3 of 

the Committee Print. First, it strikes the duties that were set out 

for the Under Secretary of Commerce. It also clarifies the duties 

that the Under Secretary is charged with carrying out are the duties as provided under the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology Act or as prescribed by the Secretary of Commerce. Our 

intent is to make the Director of NIST an Under Secretary but not 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
452 

to make the Under Secretary responsible for additional duties separate and apart from his duties as Director of NIST. We are confident that the Director of NIST has the authority to, and is already carrying out, many of the duties that were specified in the 

Committee Print. As a result, in order to avoid any confusion, we 

have decided to strike the list of duties and clarify that the statutory responsibilities of the Under Secretary are the same as the 

statutory responsibilities of the Director of NIST. 

The Manager’s Amendment also makes changes to section 6 of 

the Committee Print. Section 6 will now establish a 50 percent cost 

share for the MEP program for fiscal years 2011 through 2015. 

This change will ease the cost-matching burden on MEP centers 

given the current economic troubles and the pinch on state budgets. The Secretary will also prepare a report giving recommendations on how to structure the cost-share mechanism moving past 

fiscal year 2015 guiding this Committee in its next reauthorization 

of America COMPETES. 

I thank the minority for their good suggestions and urge adoption of the amendment. 

Is there any further discussion of the amendment? 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Wu follows:] 

STATEMENT OF THE AMENDMENT SUBMITTED BY CHAIRMAN DAVID WU

The manager’s amendment makes two changes to Section 3 of the Committee 

Print. First, it strikes the duties that were set out for the Under Secretary of Commerce. It also clarifies that the duties that the.Under Secretary is charged with carrying out are the duties as provided for under the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology Act or as prescribed by the Secretary of Commerce. 

Our intent is to make the Director of NIST an Under Secretary, but not to make 

the Under Secretary responsible for additional duties separate and apart from his 

duties as the Director of NIST. We are confident that the Director of NIST has the 

authority to, and is already carrying out, many of the duties that were specified in 

the Committee Print. As a result, in order to avoid any confusion, we have decided 

to strike the list of duties and clarify that the statutory responsibilities of the Under 

Secretary are the same as the statutory responsibilities of the Director of NIST. 

The manager’s amendment also makes changes to Section 6 of the Committee 

Print. Section 6 will now establish a 50 percent cost share for the MEP program 

for fiscal years 2011 through 2015. This change will ease the cost matching burden 

on MEP centers given the current economic troubles and pinched state. budgets. 

The Secretary will also prepare a report giving recommendations on how to structure the cost share mechanism moving past fiscal year 2015, guiding this Committee 

in its next reauthorization of America COMPETES. 

I thank the Minority for their good suggestions on this issue, and urge adoption 

of the amendment. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, Mr. Chairman 

Chairman WU. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your willingness to address our concerns about assigning additional duties to 

the Under Secretary beyond his role as Director of NIST. I understand there may be some additional agreements reached on this 

section prior to the Full Committee markup and certainly thank 

you for that as well. 

I do want to touch on the issue of the timing of some of this, and 

I appreciate the discussion I had with the Full Committee chairman, Chairman Gordon, prior to this, but I am going to withdraw 

a second-degree amendment that I planned to offer just so we can 

include this in the record. Given the timeline and so forth, and I 

don’t want to get into all the details, but it has made it difficult 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
453 

to actually work within what has been previously the practice of 

the Committee, which I have appreciated. So without going into all 

those details, I just hope that we can work through this, and with 

regard to the provision in front of us now, I certainly recognize 

these are tough economic times. I am concerned, however, if we do 

choose to alter the cost share in statute, we will have a very difficult time returning to the existing cost-share structure which has 

worked well for over 20 years certainly when the economy improves. 

My amendment would have taken into account the current economic hardships that many MEP centers are facing by allowing the 

Secretary to make a determination as to when it is appropriate to 

adjust the non-federal cost share. This would have allowed an adjustment in times of economic hardship without expecting the Federal Government to permanently take on a greater share of the 

cost, and my amendment would have asked the Secretary to review 

how the new procedures and criteria are working out and provide 

options for adjusting the cost share in the future if it is still necessary. 

The Manager’s Amendment still does not address some of the 

concerns, and I would just ask if the manager and Chair are willing to work with us on a solution that might be acceptable to both 

sides as we do move forward. 

Chairman WU. I thank the gentleman, and I thank the minority 

for its cooperation, and I want to assure the gentleman that we will 

work further to address any and all concerns on both sides, and 

with that, I would like to recognize the Chair of the Full Committee, the gentleman from Tennessee. 

Chairman GORDON. Just very quickly, I want to once again 

apologize to Mr. Smith and his staff for an amendment coming in 

late. We are trying to do things the right way. I think we do 99 

and a little bit percentage of that. So let me just say to our Democratic Members as well as minority Members, we will be going into 

a full markup next week, so, please, please, don’t put us on the 

spot of getting something in late because you may not get it in late 

because we want to take this coming period—again, there has been 

no maliciousness, but when you have a big bill like this, there are 

inconsistencies, particularly when it comes out of three different 

subcommittees. That makes it more difficult. So let us all work together and try to get something that we are all going to be happy 

with 100 percent of the time next Wednesday. 

Mr. SMITH. Would the gentleman yield? 

Chairman GORDON. Certainly. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Chairman Gordon. I just want to appreciate your handling of this matter and I look forward to resolution. 

Thank you. 

Chairman WU. I thank the Chairman and also want to again 

state that I want to thank Mr. Smith and cooperation on both sides 

on this. 

Is there any further discussion of the Manager’s Amendment? 

Then I urge adoption of the amendment. The vote now occurs on 

the Manager’s Amendment. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Those opposed, say no. The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
454 

The second amendment on the roster is an amendment offered 

by the gentlelady from Maryland. Ms. Edwards, are you ready to 

proceed with your amendment? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment 

at the desk. 

Chairman WU. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 270, amendment to the Committee Print offered by Ms. Edwards of Maryland. 

Chairman WU. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the 

reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentlelady from Maryland for five minutes to explain her amendment. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am a first-born 

child and so if I am the offender, I want to make sure to apologize. 

I do have an amendment that adds a new section, stating that 

the Director in evaluating applications for fellowships under section 18 and 19, the research fellowships and postdoctoral fellowships of NIST, shall give consideration to the goal of promoting 

participation of underrepresented minorities in research areas supported by the Institute. 

Just yesterday, Mr. Chairman, I was with the superintendent of 

one of our school systems, in the week prior, another of our superintendents, some of the largest school systems actually in the country, and they talked about the value of a relationship with our research institutions and particularly NIST for the continuation of 

leadership and study and research with NIST in particular and 

how valuable that is to our educators both our high school educators, at our community college level and our university, and we 

heard testimony before our Full Committee and our Subcommittee 

about the importance of increasing postdoctoral participation in fellowships with our research institutions. We have also heard the sobering data about the number and the fewer number of minority 

students who are entering into these research fields, and so it is 

really important, I think, in terms of the amendment that I am offering today that we encourage the inclusion of underrepresented 

minorities in developing the next generation of science and technology experts, and this is an important amendment I think that 

will strengthen the bill. And the language of the amendment is giving priority consideration in particular to high-need schools. We 

recognize that in the areas of science and technology there are 

high-need schools all across our Congressional districts-across the 

country—but prioritizing those high-need schools or giving special 

consideration to those high-need schools is really important so that 

we can make sure that educators who are trying to reach some of 

our most vulnerable populations and encouraging them to participate in STEM [Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics] fields and to further their education is really important. 

So I would like to thank the Chairman for your support and especially thank the Committee staff for your help in working on this 

important amendment, and I look forward to—we have already had 

some engagement with the minority Members on some of the language of the amendment, which I really appreciate and look forward to the Full Committee consideration next week. 

Chairman GORDON. Will the gentlelady yield? 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
455 

Ms. EDWARDS. I will. 

Chairman GORDON. Just very quickly, this is an excellent 

amendment. It has been based on our Committee record. And let 

me also say that you have set an exemplary mark for promptness 

in all that you have done, so your amendment was in in plenty of 

time and had plenty of time to be vetted, so thank you. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield. 

Chairman WU. I thank the gentlelady for her explanation. 

Is there any further discussion of the amendment? Mr. Broun. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I believe very strongly that discrimination is wrong. I have the 

same dream that Martin Luther King did, a fellow Georgian, that 

quality of character, not color of skin, should be what people are 

accepted about and how government looks upon them. Any kind of 

discrimination is wrong, whether it is discrimination for or against. 

We have many laws that are very discriminatory either positively 

or negatively. We are all supposed to be treated equal under the 

law. Everybody in this country, every human being is supposed to 

be treated equally under the law, and this amendment is counter 

to that basic philosophy that the American people generally hold 

across this country. 

So I cannot support this amendment because it is discriminatory, 

and I hope that this Congress starting with this Committee can 

start doing what is right, and that is treating everybody in this 

country equally no matter what the color of the skin is, no matter 

what their gender is, no matter where their forefathers came from. 

We need to have everybody have an equal opportunity, and this 

amendment strikes very strongly against that, and so I cannot support it, will not support it, and I encourage my fellow Committee 

members to not support this amendment. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman WU. I thank the gentleman. 

Does anyone else wish to speak? 

Chairman GORDON. Yes. 

Chairman WU. The Chairman of the Full Committee, Mr. Gordon. 

Chairman GORDON. I don’t want to dwell on this too long. Certainly we all want to see that ultimate goal of the equity that you 

mentioned, Dr. Broun, but we all don’t start off at the same starting block, and certainly we have to recognize, I think, that for some 

groups they were put in a hole in the past and we have to try to 

dig them out of that hole. And it is not just to be nice to someone. 

It is to help our country. We have had testimony time and time 

again on how it is important if we are going to move forward that 

we have to have greater skills in the STEM education area, and 

we have also learned over and over again that women and minorities, simply for a variety of reasons, either don’t have the interest 

or don’t have the scores, and if we are going to bring our country 

up, the quickest and best place that we can do that is by bumping 

up these minorities and women. And as that is done, then we will 

get everybody to the starting block and everyone will be equal and 

our country will be better off. This is not something we are doing 

for a group, this is something we are doing for our country, I think. 

I yield back my time. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
456 

Chairman WU. The gentleman from Mr. Nebraska, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Ms. Edwards for 

her efforts on this issue. I do have a concern in the language giving 

actual priority to teachers in high-need schools. I am sure every 

member here has such schools in their district, and I agree, we 

should be strengthening the teaching skills of all teachers. I am 

concerned the amendment would preclude teachers in other schools 

from participating, and I obviously would like to ensure from all 

schools remain eligible for the program. 

And Ms. Edwards, I believe we have an agreement to change the 

priority language to special consideration. Is that accurate? 

Ms. EDWARDS. That is correct, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, and I believe that we can address this 

in the Full Committee, and I look forward to that. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman WU. Thank you, Mr. Smith. 

Is there any further discussion of this amendment? If not, the 

vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Those 

opposed, say no. The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. 

Chairman WU. The third amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia. Mr. Broun, are you 

ready to proceed with your amendment? 

Mr. BROUN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman WU. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 263, amendment to the Committee Print offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia. 

Chairman WU. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the 

reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman from Georgia for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The amendment would help our Committee conduct a more effective oversight over NIST and the entire COMPETES program. It 

simply keeps intact the first 3 years of authorized spending 

through fiscal year 2013 but it strikes out the two-year funding levels for fiscal year 2014 and fiscal year 2015. It will reduce the authorized spending by $2.4 billion. The three-year authorization 

level is consistent with the original 2007 COMPETES authorization, and with that authorization we found plenty to change. 

According to CBO, the President’s budget raises the deficit to 

$1.5 trillion dollars in 2010, and a debt held by the public is ever 

growing. Additionally, this bill goes beyond the President’s request. 

And in economic times such as now, why do we need to extend 

NIST authorization to five years? We don’t. The fiscally responsible 

course to follow for our Committee is to keep NIST at a three-year 

authorization level. It makes sense to keep the authorization to 

three years since it is codifying a new reorganization of the NIST 

labs, and three years is a more adequate and appropriate time 

frame to see if the reauthorization is working. At the end of three 

years or beforehand, our Committee can always come back to the 

drawing board and assess how these agencies are living up to their 

commitments. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
457 

I urge the Committee to support this amendment, reducing the 

authorization for this NIST reauthorization to three years so that 

we can have the opportunity to review NIST progress at that time. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

Chairman WU. I thank the gentleman. It is my intention to oppose the amendment. Many of the programs at NIST are long-term 

programs, and when I visited NIST facilities, I developed a deep 

appreciation for the very important research and other programs at 

NIST which have multiyear development time frames. In addition 

to the needs of the NIST programs for a longer authorization, predictability and stability, we also had testimony from our business 

community witnesses in our prior Subcommittee hearings that 

form an outside perspective it is highly preferable to have that predictability and a longer authorization period. 

Does anyone else—Ms. Edwards. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have the great privilege of representing the NIST facility in 

Maryland and have visited a couple of times, and one of the things 

that deeply impresses me with the professionalism at NIST is, it 

is one of the few areas of government where the charge is to look 

to the future, and I think it is really difficult to do that in two- and 

three-year stretches, and I believe that the longer authorization is 

needed precisely because we want the agency to focus on developing its tools, techniques, science and technology that really lasts 

us into the future, and I am opposed to this amendment. I think 

that there is nothing in our authorization that precludes this Committee and this Congress for offering the kind of oversight that we 

need, the work that is going on under the authorization, under the 

long-term authorization. There is nothing in the authorization that 

would preclude us from making inquiry and visiting NIST to explore what they are doing for the future and to have the ability to 

make any kind of changes we might need to in the interim. 

So I support the ability of an agency like NIST in particular to 

focus its work under an authorization that it is secure in, and with 

that, I yield. 

Chairman WU. Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I do want to speak in favor of the amendment. I think that given 

our prior policy, and actually the need to continue to work on these 

issues in a very supportive manner, I think it is very reasonable 

and would certainly encourage the adoption of the amendment. 

Mr. BROUN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. 

Mr. BROUN. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would like 

to ask the chairman a question, if I might, Mr. Chairman. Isn’t it 

true that if we did a three-year authorization that even on these 

long-term projects we always come back and reauthorize them even 

two years from now or a year and a half from now or three years 

from now without having to go to a five-year authorization at this 

point? 

Chairman WU. If the gentleman would yield? 

Mr. BROUN. Yes, I yield. 

Chairman WU. I thank the gentleman. While one can make assumptions about what would happen in the next reauthorization, 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
458 

I think that there is a predictability which many seek in being able 

to go beyond one year or two years or three years. Obviously we 

don’t want to stretch this out infinitely but given the balance that 

we must strike, a five-year reauthorization in my view is quite reasonable under the current circumstances, and I yield back to the 

gentleman. 

Mr. BROUN. Well, I thank the chairman for his comments. I respectfully disagree. I think three years is a good balance between 

just reauthorizing it just a very short period of time and five-year 

authorization, and particularly in these hard economic times. We 

just simply don’t have the money to continue to create more and 

more debt for our future generations in this country, and I think 

the American people are going to look at this and say this Congress 

just continues to spend money as if there is no tomorrow, and I 

think by restricting the reauthorization to three years, it is a great 

balance, and I would encourage members to support this amendment. It is one—NIST certainly is one of the few truly constitutional functions that Federal Government is engaged in doing. 

Most of what we do here in Washington is unconstitutional. We 

have no authorization under the Constitutional according to the 

original intent to do a lot of the things that this Congress is doing, 

but NIST certainly is one of those that is authorized under the 

Constitution and we need to have a good, strong NIST, and I am 

a very strong supporter of a strong NIST, but again, I think a 

three-year authorization just makes sense and I encourage support 

of the amendment, and I yield back. 

And I thank Mr. Smith for yielding. Yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. I will say, you know, in adding that this 

amendment I don’t think stands in the way of being able to plan. 

In fact, I think it would encourage us to revisit the issues. We are 

lucky to get a one-year budget around here and I would suggest it 

needs to be a two-year budget. And that is just one issue, though, 

where let us take advantage of opportunities to continue to address 

issues, and I think that is why this amendment is reasonable and 

certainly I hope we can bring a resolution to this. Thank you. 

Chairman WU. I thank the gentleman, and I believe that the 

Ranking Member of the Full Committee, the gentleman from 

Texas, wishes to— 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I support the amendment but I can count, and I know what is going to happen to it, 

and I remember what happened to it during this time, but we debated it for some time, but I thank the chairman for recognizing 

me. I yield back my time. I am ready to vote when you are. 

Chairman WU. I thank the gentleman, and I believe that the 

gentlelady from Illinois wishes to be recognized on this amendment. 

Ms. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that this is a 

very important issue and certainly NIST is very important and we 

have the opportunity, I think, in this Committee to really move the 

innovation, creativity ahead with all of the different projects. I am 

a little bit concerned that this maybe is a little bit too much, and 

what we are looking at is kind of a 10-year doubling path, and I 

know I have tried for years to get the Office of Science doubled and 

a lot of these projects, and it never worked out, but the way that 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
459 

this is, is to take what—I think what you have done is to take the 

fiscal year 2010 as the baseline and then move it forward, which 

probably in comparison to a 10-year doubling period by the time 

you get to within the five years, you have authorized $5,627,000 

more than it would be if we were on a 10-year comparison. So, you 

know, I think we really are up a creek as far as spending and 

maybe we should take a little bit to spread it out. I am not for cutting at three years but really to change the level a little bit and 

make it 10 years rather than what you appear to do this in this 

bill. I would yield back. 

Chairman WU. I thank the gentlelady, and the gentleman from 

New York. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me just speak against the amendment. I think that reducing 

the efforts here that are made in the reforms to NIST are absolutely essential, the stronger testing patterns, the more data information, the commitment to an investment here and what needs to 

be a high priority in this country. I will even reach to the prior 

amendment from the gentlelady from Maryland. We need to cultivate the science, the innovation, the technology early on. We need 

to measure our success. We need to commit to investments, and I 

think the stronger outcome is where we need to head. Innovation 

and industrial competitiveness just need to be the ruling dynamics 

of where we are investing today, and just cutting for the sake of 

cutting without prioritization is not going to get us where we need 

to arrive. 

So I think that, as structured in this bill, is the appropriateness, 

and we should stay with the given intent. 

Mr. SMITH. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. TONKO. Yes. 

Mr. SMITH. When you reference cutting, could you elaborate on 

that? 

Mr. TONKO. Well, no, it is just I think that we need the testing 

patterns. We need to be able to view what we are doing with the 

programming. We need to make certain that we provide ample opportunity for everyone to utilize a program that I think really 

strengthens our industrial competitiveness, and I think that as it 

is structured is an appropriate response. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to suggest that this 

is not a cutting measure, and certainly it is not as antagonistic of 

an amendment as it is perhaps being characterized, but I think it 

does allow us and charge us with the necessary function of revisiting the issue and I think maybe even contributing more support 

to the charge of the agency. I yield back. 

Mr. TONKO. I was just referencing the cutting of the time frame. 

I just think that the more review we have, the better, the more opportunity to stretch our commitments here. 

Chairman WU. The gentleman yields back. 

Is there any further discussion of this amendment? If not, the 

vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Those 

opposed, say no. No. The no’s have it. 

Mr. BROUN. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman WU. The gentleman from Georgia. 

Mr. BROUN. Request a recorded vote, please, sir. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
460 

Chairman WU. A recorded vote is requested. The clerk will call 

the roll. 

The CLERK. Chairman Wu? 

Chairman WU. No. 

The CLERK. Chairman Wu votes no. Ms. Edwards? 

Ms. EDWARDS. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Edwards votes no. Mr. Luja ́n? 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Luja ́n votes no. Mr. Tonko? 

Mr. TONKO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Tonko votes no. Mr. Mitchell? 

Mr. MITCHELL. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Mitchell votes no. Mr. Peters? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Garamendi? 

Mr. GARAMENDI. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Garamendi votes no. Mr. Gordon? 

Chairman GORDON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gordon votes no. Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith votes aye. Mrs. Biggert? 

Ms. BIGGERT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Biggert votes aye. Mr. Akin? 

Mr. AKIN. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Akin votes aye. Mr. Broun? 

Mr. BROUN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Broun votes aye. Mr. Hall? 

Mr. HALL. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hall votes aye. 

Chairman WU. Does anyone else wish to be recorded? If not, the 

clerk will report. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, five Members vote aye and seven 

Members vote no. 

Chairman WU. The amendment is not agreed to. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
461 

The fourth amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by the gentleman 

from Nebraska. Mr. Smith, are you ready to proceed? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment adds a new section— 

Chairman WU. The clerk— 

Mr. SMITH. I have an amendment at the desk. Thank you. 

Chairman WU. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 269, amendment to the Committee Print offered 

by Mr. Smith of Nebraska. 

Chairman WU. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading, and without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman from Nebraska for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a fairly straightforward amendment. It clarifies the potential ambiguity in the current language regarding NIST’s 

role in support of information security standards. 

The amendment simply states that the reference in section 4 to the NIST IT labs 

development of cybersecurity standards and guidelines for U.S. industry and the 

public refers to voluntary standards and guidelines. There have been some suggesVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00467 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu12a.eps
462 

tions that NIST’s current standards and guidelines should directly or indirectly be 

mandated for the private sector. While there is broad agreement that there is an 

appropriate role for NIST in assisting the private sector improve the security of its 

systems, regulating private cybersecurity practices could be counterproductive to our 

security goals. I fully realize this is not the chairman’s intent and the language in 

the bill does not do this, but my amendment would ensure this remains clear by 

explicitly stating use of NIST’s security standards and guidelines outside the Federal Government shall be voluntary. 

With that, I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment and I yield back 

the balance of my time. 

Chairman WU. I thank the gentleman. 

Is there any further discussion of this amendment? If not, then the vote occurs 

on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. All opposed, say no. In the opinion of the 

Chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. 

The fifth amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by the gentleman 

from New Mexico. Mr. Luja ́n, are you ready to proceed with your amendment? 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman WU. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 047, amendment to the Committee Print offered 

by Mr. Luja ́n of New Mexico. 

Chairman WU. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. Without 

objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman from New Mexico for five minutes to explain his 

amendment. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Innovation has always been a hallmark of American success, and the United 

States has the best research facilities and educational institutions in the world, and 

we continue to be a leader in developing cutting-edge technology in fields spanning 

from renewable energy to medicine. But our ability to ensure that our country is 

globally competitive relies on our ability to educate our students and equip them 

with the skills they need to succeed in the jobs of the future. This is especially true 

for minority students who are often underrepresented in science, technology, engineering and math fields. 

The bioscience research program established in this bill will support the development of standards and measurements to advance biological and medical technology. 

The university research centers will advance this program by conducting hands-on 

research and testing activities under the skills of students trained in STEM fields 

at educational institutions selected through a competitive application process. 

My amendment today adds a new section to University Research Centers Program 

that requires the director of the program to give special consideration to applications from minority-serving institutions. We must make a commitment to restore 

science and innovation as keys to the new American economy. Innovation is the future for our Nation, and together we must ensure that our minority students are 

trained to be scientists and engineers and prepare to become part of the workforce 

for the 21st century. 

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 

yield back my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Luja ́n follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE BEN R. LUJA ́ N

Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

Innovation has always been a hallmark of American success. The United States 

has the best research facilities and educational institutions in the world, and we 

continue to be a leader in developing cutting edge technology in fields spanning 

from renewable energy to medicine. But our ability to ensure that our country is 

globally competitive relies on our ability to educate our students and equip them 

with the skills they need to succeed in the jobs of the future. This is especially true 

for minority students, who are often underrepresented in science, technology, engineering and math fields. Minority students have unique learning needs and our Minority Serving Institutions are designed to ensure that these students have the support they need to succeed. 

The Bioscience Research Program established in this bill will support the development of standards and measurements to advance biological and medical technology. 

The University Research Centers will advance this program by conducting handson research and testing activities using the skills of students trained in STEM fields 

at educational institutions selected through a competitive application process. My 

amendment today adds a new section to the University Research Centers program 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
463 

that requires the Director of the program to give special consideration to applications from Minority Serving Institutions. 

We must make a commitment to restore science and innovation as the keys to 

a new American economy. Innovation is the future for our nation. And, together we 

must ensure that our minority students are trained to be scientists and engineers 

and prepared to become part of the workforce for the 21st century. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, thank you Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman WU. I thank the gentleman. 

Does anyone wish to be recognized? 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. I 

am sorry. I misstated. 

Chairman WU. Does anyone on this side wish to make further 

statement? I would like to recognize then the gentleman from California. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. A question. This issue was heavily debated in 

another subcommittee having to do with the hub systems and the 

way in which this kind of language would apply, and I think the 

issue needs to be brought up once again in this context. I suspect 

the words ‘‘special consideration’’—what is special consideration 

here? And how do these Bioscience Research Centers work in that 

regard? Again, it was heavily debated, a long discussion on it, and 

there was some language approved in another subcommittee on 

this issue. I am just kind of curious if this is coordinated with that 

issue or it this—how does this work? 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Yes. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. If we could ask staff for a specific definition as well 

on the bioresearch program that will be established and so then we 

can get into how some of the minority-serving institutions for collaborative purposes would be given special consideration to be able 

to provide partnerships as we are seeking to enact programs that 

would strengthen STEM fields specifically. 

Ms. COUNSEL. Hi. Well, I can’t speak to the definition of special 

condition. I can speak to the Bioscience Research Program. What 

the legislation does is establish a Bioscience Research Program to 

support research and development of standard reference materials, 

measurements, methods and genomic and other data to advance 

biomedical science. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. So, Mr. Chairman, as we see institutions from 

around the country where there are underrepresented populations, 

specifically in STEM where we continue to see areas where we are 

underperforming as we strengthen NIST, as we look to other areas 

that we can encourage STEM growth, I think it is very important 

that we provide that stable footing as with one of the other amendments that was provided today to take into consideration how we 

do have underrepresented areas that require special consideration 

to be able to advance additional partnerships, and that is what this 

would be encouraging, which is consistent with the debate that we 

had before which I think we will be taking up with Full Committee 

markup as well. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. The issue, if I might, the issue of special consideration, is that a direction to the director to do these programs at 

one or another of these universities regardless of their current capability of doing the program? 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
464 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. If the gentleman would yield? Mr. Chairman, as the 

amendment says, if you look at page 24 after line 8, ‘‘insert the following: the director shall give special consideration to the application for an institution of higher education, that is’’ and they are 

outlined with the rest of the amendments. Now, Mr. Chairman, I 

would hope that as we look to strengthen our universities and we 

look for partnerships that we are able to bring in schools that have 

the opportunity and possibility in populations throughout the country where we can make sure that we are moving this forward. 

Chairman WU. If the gentleman from New Mexico would yield? 

Chairman GORDON. If the gentleman would yield? 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Yes. 

Chairman GORDON. I think the answer to the question is not 

mandatory, if that is your question. It is not mandatory. 

Chairman WU. And the gentleman from New Mexico yields back. 

Does anyone else wish to—the gentlelady from Illinois. 

Ms. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that this is a 

very important discussion as far as what the definition of special 

consideration and it seems that the counsel does not have one, and 

talk about the director shall, you know, any time you use the word 

‘‘shall’’ that speaks of mandates, not being voluntary. I think that 

we really need to—someplace there has to be a definition of special 

consideration. It could be—you know, we were just talking about 

this before with priority. Is that different than priority? Is that different than just consideration itself? If we are going to, you know, 

do policy, we need to really make sure that we define those kind 

of terms, you know, like reasonable doubt, whatever on these 

things that this whole amendment seems to fall on just the special 

consideration and nobody can give a definition. I yield back. 

Chairman WU. I thank the gentlelady. My understanding is that 

the discussion in the other subcommittee was about an amendment 

which was offered and then withdrawn, and there is no further development there. The gentleman from Nebraska. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate Mr. Luja ́n’s 

work on this amendment. In looking at all of the language in the 

base bill and so forth, we just want to be consistent in addition to 

perhaps defining so that we are all on the same page. You know, 

I think that this is one of the most important topics that this Congress can bring attention to in terms of what our country needs, 

how we can compete in the world and offer young people an opportunity for the future and not only providing them opportunity but 

in resolving the challenges that we face economically and otherwise. So I would just ask that we maybe take an opportunity to 

iron this out before Full Committee markup because of, I think 

some ambiguities that do exist. 

Chairman WU. I thank the gentleman, and I think that that is 

a positive suggestion to further elaborate on or to at least work on 

at both a Member and a staff level whether further definition of 

this terminology is necessary. 

Are there any other Members who wish to speak to this amendment? 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Mr. Chairman, just quickly. I mean, as we talk about 

the question of ambiguity, I guess I would support having a discussion if additional language is needed. It doesn’t appear to me that 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
465 

the ambiguity associated with trying to encourage treatment, to encourage areas where we know that there are needs. We see science, 

technology, engineering, mathematics performance and scoring in 

institutions with Native American populations young and old, Native Americans need additional assistance. Across the area, there 

is equal underrepresented scoring and performance with science, 

technology, engineering and mathematics and lack of representation with African Americans, Hispanics, Latinos, and this is an 

area where I would hope that it is not a partisan issue. I hope it 

is something that we can definitely work on to help achieve and to 

make sure that we are truly helping to lift this country, move it 

forward, strengthen the economy, look to many of those that can 

provide the support that we need so that we have the capacity for 

engineering and mathematics in this country. It is very clear that 

companies are continuing to look to outsource some of these needs, 

and we need to look to see how we can strengthen our system domestically as well so that way we can look to help provide the 

workforce that we need and— 

Ms. BIGGERT. Will the gentleman yield? 

Chairman WU. I want to thank the gentleman for his comments, 

and I just want to note that the Chair used his discretion to make 

a small bend in the procedure, and I will either yield myself such 

time so that I can yield to the gentleman from New Mexico for further comments or some other Member might, but right now the 

gentleman from California is recognized for comment. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman from 

New Mexico is quite correct in the basic argument that he is making that we need to encourage more minorities to be involved in 

science, engineering and technical matters. These universities that 

are specified in this particular language clearly have the population that should be interested and should have the opportunity 

to engage in those activities. 

I am just concerned about how best to get those institutions involved in it. I know this debate was going on in another subcommittee, so this is seen in several different parts of the overarching legislation. We need to coordinate the various sections to 

achieve the goal. In the previous subcommittee, the discussion 

came down to partnerships with universities that had traditionally 

been receiving these kinds of research grants, that their application 

might score higher if it engaged these minority institutions in one 

way or another or the minority institution might be partnering 

with. It is not clear in this language that that is achieved, and I 

would suggest that we really delve into this in some detail because 

the thrust of this amendment is appropriate. How to achieve it in 

coordination with the other subcommittees is I think the concern 

here. 

Ms. BIGGERT. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Yes. I am quite finished and yield back and 

done. 

Ms. BIGGERT. I appreciate the gentleman from California’s remarks, and I think that we all really—this is not a partisan issue. 

This really is to make sure if we are going to make this work just 

to get it right. If you look at—the Secretary looks at this as well, 

now, what do I do. I think that we need to be a little bit more— 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
466 

have a little more either legislative intent or some changes to this 

following the discussion in the other subcommittee. I think this 

needs to be clarified. I appreciate the chairman, and— 

Mr. SMITH. Will the gentlelady yield? 

Ms. BIGGERT. I would yield to— 

Mr. SMITH. I guess would the gentleman yield? 

Ms. BIGGERT. I guess the gentleman from California would have 

to. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Yes, I yield everything. I am finished. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. I do want to touch on the fact that there 

is some language in the NSF title that is inconsistent with the language of the amendment. I don’t know if it is Mr. Luja ́n’s intent 

to change that, if he might elaborate on what his objective is. We 

just want to make sure that we have got consistent language here, 

if you would wish to elaborate on that or we can discuss it off the 

record as well. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Well, if the gentleman would yield, I think the Chairman has clearly said that this is something we can bring forward. 

There is other legislation before us with NSF [National Science 

Foundation] which is not the NIST bill and they are two different 

pieces of legislation to come before the Committee. I appreciate the 

dialogue and the discussion associated with the legislative intent 

associated with special consideration as we move forward of the 

treatment of universities or those institutions that may be included 

for special consideration or other appropriate language to make 

sure that we are truly looking at underrepresented communities to 

bring them forward. 

Chairman WU. The gentleman from California’s time has completely expired now, and I think that it is fair to say that given the 

discussion in several different subcommittees that we will be taking a close look and working to find appropriate further elaboration 

of the terminology. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I look forward 

to resolving this issue. Thank you. 

Chairman WU. Thank you. 

Is there any further discussion of this? The gentlelady from 

Maryland. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just wanted to clarify from Mr. Luja ́n and, you know, I really 

appreciate the amendment that he has offered today. I mean, it is 

just no great secret that when everything seems as though it is, 

you know, fair across the board that for whatever reasons minorityserving institutions do not enjoy the benefits of receiving these research opportunities, and I suppose we could go into a long history 

about that but, you know, the facts are true. We can see it in the 

numbers. We can see it in the research grants. And so there is 

great need to make sure that the agency is making itself, you 

know, known to these institutions and really considering the institutions in making grants. 

I would note that there is nothing in the amendment that actually—in the base bill that would change the obligation under the 

University Research Centers for whatever institution is awarded 

funding to comply with what other institutions have to do to comply to be a university-based research center. I mean, there is nothVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00472 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
467 

ing about that. It is only saying to, I think, and perhaps Mr. Luja ́n 

could clarify but it is only saying to the agency, it is really up to 

you to make sure, to make certain that along with meeting these 

basic criteria that you are considering all of these institutions 

which have for many different reasons and for a long time been absent from participating as research centers. 

And so is my understanding correct, Mr. Luja ́n, that there is 

nothing that precludes the agency or prohibits the agency from 

using the exact same criteria that it would use to evaluate any 

other research organization? 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Mr. Chairman, I don’t think that could have been explained any better. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, and with that I yield. 

Chairman WU. I thank the gentlelady. 

Is there any further discussion of this amendment? If not, the 

vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Those 

opposed, say no. The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. 

Are there any other amendments to the bill? If not, the vote is 

on the Committee Print as amended. All those in favor will say 

aye. Aye. All those opposed will say no. In the opinion of the Chair, 

the ayes have it, and I recognize myself to offer a motion. 

I move that the Subcommittee favorably report the Committee 

Print as amended to the Full Committee. Furthermore, I move that 

staff be instructed to prepare the Subcommittee Report and make 

necessary technical and conforming changes to the print in accordance with the recommendations of the Subcommittee. 

The question occurs on the motion to report the print favorably. 

Those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. Aye. Those 

opposed will say no. The ayes have it and the print is favorably reported. 

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

Members will have two calendar days in which to submit supplemental minority or additional views on this measure. 

And I want to thank all the Members for their attendance and 

participation, and this concludes our Subcommittee markup. The 

Subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:19 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
(469) 

Appendix: 

COMMITTEE PRINT, SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS, AMENDMENT

ROSTER


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
470 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu12b.eps
471 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu12c.eps
472 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu121c.eps
473 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu12d.eps
474 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu12e.eps
475 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu12f.eps
476 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu12g.eps
477 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu12h.eps
478 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu12i.eps
479 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu12j.eps
480 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu12k.eps
481 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu12l.eps
482 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu12m.eps
483 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu12n.eps
484 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu12o.eps
485 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu12p.eps
486 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu12q.eps
487 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu12r.eps
488 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu12s.eps
489 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu12t.eps
490 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu12u.eps
491 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu12v.eps
492 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu12w.eps
493 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu12x.eps
494 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu12y.eps
495 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu121y.eps
496 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu12z.eps
497 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY

REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2010 

Section 1. Short Title 

National Institute of Standards and Technology Reauthorization Act of 2010. 

Section 2. Authorization of Appropriations 

Authorizes a total of $5.628 billion for the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) for FY2011 through FY 2015. The total consists of authorization 

levels of $1.012 billion in FY 2011, $1.035 billion in FY 2012, $1.137 billion in FY 

2013, $1.188 billion in FY 2014, and $1.256 billion in FY 2015. 

Includes within the total authorization a total of $3.495 billion for NIST labs for 

FY 2011 through FY 2015. The total for NIST labs consists of authorization levels 

of $620.0 million in FY 2011, $657.2 million in FY 2012, $696.7 million in FY 2013, 

$738.5 million in FY 2014, and $782.8 million in FY 2015. 

Includes within the total authorization a total of $589 million for construction and 

maintenance of facilities for FY 2011 through FY 2015. The total for construction 

and maintenance consists of authorization levels of $125 million for FY 2011, $85 

million for FY 2012, $122 million for FY 2013, $124 million for FY 2014, and $133 

million for FY 2015. 

Includes within the total authorization $1.545 billion for industrial technology 

services for FY 2011 through FY 2015, which includes a total of $681 million for 

the Technology Innovation Program (TIP), a total of $811.2 million for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program, and a total of $53.1 million for the 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award program. The total for TIP consists of authorization levels of $116 million for FY 2011, $132 million for FY 2012, $147 million for FY 2013, $142 million for FY 2014, and $144 million for FY 2015. The total 

for MEP consists of authorization levels of $141.1 million for FY 2011, $150.9 million for FY 2012, $161.5 million for FY 2013, $172.8 million for FY 2014, and $184.9 

million for FY 2015. The total for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award 

program includes authorization levels for $10 million for FY 2011, $10.3 million for 

FY 2012, $10.6 million for FY 2013, $10.9 million for FY 2014, and $11.3 million 

for FY 2015. 

Section 3. Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology 

Creates the Office of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology. The current Director of the NIST would become the Under Secretary until 

a successor is appointed. (This is the same structure as at the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)). 

The duties of the Under Secretary/NIST Director are focused on improving U.S. 

competitiveness and innovation through: 

1) Policy analysis studies on innovation and technical standards; 

2) Studies that evaluate the effectiveness of measures for improving Federal 

technical transfer policies and initiatives; 

3) Cooperative efforts between the Under Secretary and other Department of 

Commerce officials responsible for trade and economic assistance being undertaken to stimulate competitiveness, job creation, and innovation; 

4) Supporting the creation of hubs, clusters, centers, and other joint initiatives 

by state or local governments, regional organizations, private businesses, 

universities, non-profits, or Federal labs. The focus of these initiatives are 

technology transfer and innovation; 

5) Supporting activities to improve training programs and curricula for hightech manufacturing skills; and 

6) Serving as a focal point for U.S. companies to discuss Federal policies on innovation, competitiveness, and job creation and retention. 

Section 4. Reorganization of NIST Laboratories 

Organizes the NIST labs into the following operational units: 

1) The Physical Measurement Lab, whose mission is to develop and maintain 

the national standards for length, mass, time, frequency, electricity, temperature, force, radiation, and developing standards policy; 

2) The Information Technology Lab, whose mission and focus is developing 

standards and testing for interoperability, security, usability, and reliability 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
498 

of information technologies (IT) and communications technologies working 

with industry; 

3) The Engineering Lab, whose mission is to develop and disseminate advance 

manufacturing and construction technologies, including performance metrics 

and technical standards for green infrastructure and energy efficiency, to the 

U.S. manufacturing and construction industries; 

4) The Material Measurement Lab, whose mission is to serve as the national 

reference lab in biological, chemical, and material sciences and engineering; 

5) The Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology, a nationally shared facility-for use by industry, institutions of higher education, and Federal agencies 

(including NIST), whose mission is to develop innovative nanoscale measurement and fabrication capabilities; and 

6) The NIST Center for Neutron Research, a nationally shared facility for use 

by industry, institutions of higher education, and Federal agencies (including 

NIST), whose mission is to provide neutron-based measurement capabilities 

for materials research, non-destructive evaluation, neutron imaging, chemical analysis, neutron standards, dosimetry, and radiation metrology. 

Allows the Director to make future changes to the NIST laboratory structure, provided he submit a report to Congress before implementing such change. 

Section 5. Federal Government Standards and Conformity Assessment Coordination 

Assigns the Director of NIST the responsibility to convene Federal departments 

and agencies to coordinate Federal Government policy goals and engagement on 

international technical standards and conformity assessment-related activities working with industry and standards development organizations. 

Requires the Director to submit a report to Congress which addresses current and 

anticipated international standards issues with the potential to impact U.S. competitiveness and innovation capabilities, actions taken by the Federal Government 

to address these issues, and any action the Director is taking or will take to ensure 

effective Federal Government engagement on technical standards and conformity assessment-related issues. 

Section 6. Manufacturing Extension Partnership 

Updates the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program: 

1) Adds to the MEP mission to provide information to local community colleges 

on the job skill sets needed by local/regional small- and medium-sized manufacturers; 

2) Creates an innovation services initiative to assist small- and medium-sized 

manufacturers to reduce their energy usage and environmental waste; accelerate the domestic commercialization of new product technologies (including 

components of renewable energy systems); and ensures that there is market 

demand for these new product technologies. Expands a current MEP grant 

program to fund these activities at local MEP Centers; 

3) Requires NIST to assess its governance of the MEP program using the criteria of the Malcolm Baidrige National Quality Award; 

4) Allows the Secretary to modify a Center’s cost share provisions as the Secretary deems appropriate; and 

5) Exempts the MEP Advisory Board from Section 14 of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (FACA), ‘Termination of advisory committees; renewal; continuation.’ 

Section 7. Bioscience Research Program 

This program establishes a Bioscience Research Program at NIST to support the 

development of standard reference materials and measurements to advance biological drug research and development, molecular diagnostics, medical imaging technology, and personalized medicine. 

The Director may also establish University Research Centers (which can include 

industry partners) through a competitive application process to conduct research 

that furthers the objectives of the bioscience research program. It requires that, not 

later than 3 years after any University Research Center is established, the Director 

evaluate each center for its contribution to the bioscience research program. 

The program allows the Director to establish a user facility for industry, institutions of higher education, nonprofit organizations, and government agencies in order 

to perform research and testing, providing access to advanced or unique equipment, 

services, materials, and other resources. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
499 

Changes the number of NIST’s Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology members to vary between 15 and 20 and requiring at least 13 of those members to be 

from U.S. industry. 

Section 8. Advisory Board 

Exempts the Technology Innovation Program (TIP) Advisory Board from Section 

14 of FACA. 

Section 9. Definitions 

Defines the terms ‘Director’ and ‘Federal Agency.’ 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
500 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu12aa.eps
501 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu12bb.eps
502 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu12cc.eps
503 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu12dd.eps
504 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu12ee.eps
505 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu12ff.eps
506 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu12ii.eps
507 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu12gg.eps
508 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu12hh.eps
509 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu12jj.eps
510 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGscmu12kk.eps
511 

XXIV. PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP ON H.R. 5116, THE AMERICA COMPETES REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 

2010 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 28, 2010 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, 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. The Committee will come to 

order. 

Pursuant to notice, the Committee on Science and Technology 

meets to consider the following measure: H.R. 5116, the America 

COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. We will now proceed 

with the markup. 

On October 12, 2005, in response to a bipartisan request by this 

committee and our colleagues in the Senate, the National Academies announced the report Rising Above the Gathering Storm. The 

distinguished panel led by Norm Augustine painted a very scary 

picture and told us that without action, the future was bleak for 

our children and our grandchildren. This report was without question a call to arms. 

So this committee moved forward by turning the Gathering 

Storm recommendations into legislative language. The final result 

was enactment of the America COMPETES Act of 2007 with the 

bipartisan support of 367 Members. Moreover, with the leadership 

of Senators Alexander and Bingaman, and 69 cosponsors, the Senate approved the Conference Report by unanimous consent, and I 

told Senator Alexander the other day that if he does this once 

again by unanimous consent in the Senate, that I am nominating 

him for the Nobel Peace Prize as well as special envoy to the Middle East. 

Now, after three years, we are back to work on the reauthorization of COMPETES. Since the enactment of COMPETES, the Committee has held 48 hearings on areas addressed in the bill before 

us today. 

The subcommittees, through a bipartisan process, have brought 

to the Full Committee a strong body of work, and I would like to 

thank our subcommittee chairs and ranking members for their 

stewardship of the matters in each of their jurisdictions. I also 

would like to especially thank the majority and minority staffs for 

the many, many hours of thoughtful work that they have committed, and all the good advice we have received from Members on 

and off the Committee, as well as other interested outside parties. 

Honestly, this bill is a big deal and it is important. It is a big 

deal and important for our country and for the Committee’s stature 

in Congress. It is a big deal and an important step in leading our 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
512 

innovation agenda. It is a big deal and important for the business 

community, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National 

Association of Manufacturers and the Business Roundtable, which 

is why they have been so supportive. It is a big deal and important 

for our universities and our national labs. And it is a big deal and 

important for our children and grandchildren, so they are not the 

first generation of Americans to inherit a standard of living lower 

than their parents. 

Statistics speak for themselves. More than 50 percent of our economic growth since World War II can be directly attributed to investments in research. The path is simple. Research leads to innovation. Innovation leads to economic development and good-paying 

jobs. 

And even before the price of oil hit record highs, Gathering 

Storm recommended greater energy independence. But we must 

move to a cleaner, more efficient and more balanced energy portfolio. We should not trade our dependency on foreign oil for a dependency on foreign technology, and that is why ARPA–E [Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy] is important. 

Now, throughout this process, there has been a lot of legitimate 

discussions about federal deficits, and I agree that we must address 

the challenges presented by our deficits, but we must also invest 

in our country’s future. I remember Newt Gingrich saying that one 

of his greatest regrets was not doubling the funding for the National Science Foundation when he put NIH [National Institutes of 

Health] on a path to doubling. 

In the manager’s amendment I will offer today, we will maintain 

a doubling path for our research accounts over the next 10 years, 

but on a slightly less steep trajectory. As a matter of fact, we will 

be cutting 10 percent off the original request. So, now, if I were responsible for writing this bill myself, it would look somewhat different than the bill we are going to consider today, but that is a 

good thing. There have been sincere efforts to be inclusive, to work 

with Members on both sides of the aisle and develop a bill that is 

truly a Committee work product. I believe this is a good bill both 

on substance and on process, and it is a better bill because of the 

contributions of all of our Members. 

Ms. Johnson, Ms. Edwards, Ms. Fudge and Mr. Luja ́n have improved the bill through efforts on diversity and broadening participation. Dr. Ehlers has helped perfect the definitions for the Office 

of Science. Mr. Smith has helped ensure that standards developed 

through NIST [National Institute of Standards and Technology] remain voluntary for businesses and industry. Mr. Garamendi has 

helped ensure that the findings of the fusion energy report make 

their way into the Department of Energy’s planning. These are just 

a few examples of amendments that have improved our product, 

without mentioning the hours and hours of staff discussion and the 

countless changes made during the past month and a half. 

COMPETES is truly and will continue to be a bipartisan, bicameral effort that everyone on this committee can feel ownership 

of and should take bragging rights on. 

And finally, let me say that more than 50 years ago, when 

DARPA [Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency] was first 

created, they had no idea that the research they would fund would 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
513 

be responsible for creation of the Internet or proliferation of GPS 

technology. But it did. And those inventions started with federal 

dollars, as well as countless other game-changing technologies. 

And I really believe in the next 30 years, when most of us are 

gone from Congress and when this committee is working on the 

fifth or sixth reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act, I am 

confident that my good friend Mr. Hall will regale us or regale everyone that is left with stories about our efforts today and how we 

got our innovative spirit back on track and the breakthroughs that 

ensued. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Gordon follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BART GORDON

On October 12, 2005, in response to a bipartisan request by this committee and 

our colleagues in the Senate, the National Academies announced the report Rising 

Above the Gathering Storm. The distinguished panel led by Norm Augustine painted 

a very scary picture and told us that without action, the future was bleak for our 

children and grandchildren. This report was without question a call to arms. 

So, this committee moved forward by turning the Gathering Storm recommendations into legislative language. The final result was enactment of the America COMPETES Act of 2007 with the bipartisan support of 367 members. Moreover, with the 

leadership.of Senators Alexander and, Bingaman, and 69 Senate cosponsors, the 

Senate approved the Conference Report by unanimous consent. 

Now after 3 years we are back to work on reauthorizing COMPETES. Since enactment of COMPETES, the committee has held 48 hearings on areas addressed in the 

bill before us today. 

The subcommittees, through .a bipartisan process, have brought to the full committees strong body of work and I would like to thank our Subcommittee Chairs and 

Ranking Members for their stewardship of the matters in each of their jurisdictions. 

I also would. like to especially thank the majority and minority staffs for the many 

hours of thoughtful work that they have committed. . And all the good advice we 

have received from Members on and off the committee, as well as other interested 

outside parties. 

Honestly, this bill is a big deal and is important. It’s a big deal and important 

for our country and for this committee’s stature in the Congress. 

It’s a big deal and an important step in leading our Innovation agenda. it’s a big 

deal and important for the business community including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the Business Roundtable 

which is why they have been so supportive. It’s a big deal and Important for our 

universities and our national labs. And, it’s a big deal and important for our children and grand children so. they are not the first generation of Americans to inherit 

a standard of living lower than their parents. 

If we are to reverse the trend of the last twenty years, where our country’s technology edge in the world has diminished, we must make the investments necessary 

today. 

The statistics speak for them themselves. More than 50% of our economic growth 

since World War II can be directly attributed to Investments in research. 

The path is simple. Research leads to innovation. Innovation leads to economic 

development and good paying jobs. 

Even before the price of oil hit record highs, Gathering Storm recommended greater energy independence. But as we move to a cleaner, more efficient and more balanced energy portfolio, we should not trade our dependence on foreign oil for a dependence on foreign technology. That why is ARPA–E is so important. 

Through this process, there has been a lot of legitimate discussion about federal 

deficits. I agree that we must address the challenges presented by our deficits, but 

we must also invest in our country’s future. I remember Newt Gingrich saying one 

of his greatest regrets was not doubling the funding for the NSF when he put NIH 

on the doubling path. 

In the manager’s amendment I will offer today, we will maintain a doubling path 

for our research accounts over the next 10 years, but on a slightly less steep trajectory. Though some of my colleagues may believe this cut is not-enough, I would offer 

to them that Newt Gingrich’s doubling path of NIH took piece over 6 years, and 

in fact nearly tripled over twelve. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
514 

Chairman GORDON. Now I recognize Mr. Hall to present his 

opening remarks. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I think I thank you for a Full Committee markup of America COMPETES, and of course, our Nation’s 

ability to compete in a global marketplace depends on many, many 

factors. Witnesses who have appeared before our Committee this 

past year and other years have stressed the need for lower taxes, 

streamlined federal regulations, a reduced national debt and greater market choice to remain competitive. Investments in basic 

science research and development also spur long-term growth and 

are of particular interest to our Committee, and I know they are 

of particular interest to this Chairman. It is not surprising that the 

National Academies report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, and 

President Bush’s American Competitiveness Initiative focused on 

these types of scientific investments. 

In 2007, our Committee also responded by passing the America 

COMPETES bill, which was a three-year authorization that placed 

three agencies, National Science Foundation, the National Institute 

of Standards of Technology and the Office of Science at the Department of Energy, on a 10-year doubling path. The bill before us 

today reauthorizes these agencies for five years at a cost of over 

$93 billion. It establishes seven new programs and initiatives including energy innovation hubs at DOE [Department of Energy], a 

loan guarantee program at the Department of Commerce, regional 

innovation clusters at the Department of Commerce, and a new 

user facility at NIST. 

The concern that I have is that some of these new programs are 

potentially duplicative of current efforts and divert funding away 

from basic science research and development. They also increase 

the cost of the bill by billions. I remain committed to investing in 

basic science research and development but I am also mindful of 

our current dire economic situation. The percentage of our Nation’s 

debt is now greater than the percentage of our gross domestic product and our Nation’s budget deficit has increased 50 percent since 

the last authorization of this bill three years ago. These numbers 

are truly unsustainable and threaten America’s ability to compete 

globally. As stewards of the taxpayers’ dollars during these times, 

we need to be even more vigilant with how we allocate our resources. 

During the subcommittee markups, Republican Members offered 

good amendments to, among other things, shorten the length of authorization from five years to three years to ensure proper oversight, strike new and potentially duplicative programs and clarify 

the mission and direction of programs. While these did not pass at 

the subcommittee level, several Members today will be offering 

similar amendments in addition to others in an attempt to continue 

the goals outlined in Rising Above the Gathering Storm while protecting taxpayers against potential waste and ballooning deficits. I 

am hopeful that they will get a favorable reception today. 

I would like to thank the Chairman and his staff for working 

with me and working with the Republican staff throughout the 

process. As I have said before and as I believe today, I have enjoyed working with you over the years and will really and truly 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
515 

miss your presence in Congress, your leadership and your friendship after your retirement this next year. I yield back my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES RALPH M. HALL

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this full committee markup of America 

COMPETES. Our. nation’s ability to compete in the global marketplace depends on 

many factors. Witnesses who have appeared before our committee this year have 

stressed the need for lower taxes, streamlined Federal regulations; a reduced national debt, and greater market choice-to remain competitive. Investments in basic 

science research and development also spur long-term growth and are of particular 

interest to our Committee. It is not surprising then that the National Academies 

report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, and President Bush’s American Competitiveness Initiative focused on these types of scientific investments. 

In 2007, our committee also responded by passing the America COMPETES bill, 

which was a 3-year authorization that placed three agencies, the National Science 

Foundation (NSF), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and 

the Office of Science at the Department of Energy (DOE) on a 10-year ‘‘doubling 

path.’’ 

The bill before us today reauthorizes these agencies for 5 years at a cost of over $93 billion. It establishes seven new programs; and initiatives, including energy innovation hubs at DOE, a loan guarantee program at the Department of Commerce, 

regional innovation clusters at the Department of Commerce, and a new user facility at NIST. The concern that I have is that some of these new programs are potentially duplicative of current efforts and divert funding away from basic science research and development. They also increase the cost of the bill by billions. 

I remain committed to investing in basic science research and development, but 

I am also mindful of . our current dire economic situation. The percentage of our 

nation’s debt is now greater than the percentage of our gross domestic product 

(GDP) and our nation’s budget deficit has increased 50% since the last authorization 

of this bill three years ago. These numbers are truly unsustainable and threaten 

America’s ability to compete globally. 

As stewards of the taxpayers’ dollars during these times, we need to be even more 

vigilant with how we allocate our resources. During the subcommittee markups, Republican Members offered good amendments to, among other things, shorten the 

length of authorization from 5 years to 3 years to ensure proper oversight, strike 

new and potentially duplicative programs, and clarify the mission and direction of 

programs. While these did not pass at the subcommittee level, several Members 

today will be offering similar amendments, in addition to others, in an attempt to 

continue the goals outlined in Rising Above the Gathering Storm while protecting. 

taxpayers against potential waste and ballooning deficits. I am hopeful that they 

will get a favorable reception today. 

I would like to thank the Chairman and his staff for working with me and the 

Republican staff throughout this process. As I have said before, I have enjoyed 

working with you over the years and will truly miss your presence in Congress after 

your retirement this year. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Hall. 

Does anyone else wish to be recognized? Mr. Baird is recognized. 

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, solely for the purpose of lamenting 

your absence at the Capitol Challenge this morning. As many of 

my colleagues know, Chairman Gordon set an impressive record of 

20 consecutive wins in 20 years, unparalleled and sure to be 

unrepeated, and we missed you this morning but I am proud to say 

Dan Lipinski from this committee finished second behind a gentleman about half his age. So, Mr. Chairman, America competes 

and so does the Chairman of this committee, and we are very 

proud of you. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Baird. You can see the importance I put on this legislation to be here today and break a 20- 

year streak. 

Does anyone wish to be recognized? If not, we will move forward. 

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


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
516 

open to amendment at any point, and that the amendment in the 

nature of an substitute which was noticed along with the bill be 

treated as original text for the purpose of amendment, and the 

reading of the amendment in the nature of a substitute be dispensed with and that the Members proceed with the amendments 

in the order of the roster. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, and I 

probably will not object if this conversation goes well. I would like 

to ask the Chairman to confirm for me today’s Full Committee 

markup process of H.R. 5116, Mr. Chairman, you are requesting 

unanimous consent to waive the reading of the amendment in the 

nature of a substitute? 

Chairman GORDON. That is correct. 

Mr. HALL. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Further, we are also to 

consider a manager’s amendment today which will be first on the 

roster? 

Chairman GORDON. That is correct. 

Mr. HALL. The official markup notice requested members draft 

their amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. 

However, by circulating a manager’s amendment last evening, 

some Members were forced to redraft their amendments. This is 

the second time in a week for this type of situation. However, the 

Chairman acknowledged this additional step in the process, which 

we greatly appreciate. I thank you, and we worked hard to meet 

the amendment deadline. 

Mr. Chairman, will these amendments drafted, the manager’s 

amendment, go first on the roster? 

Chairman GORDON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HALL. Is it the Chairman’s intention that Members be able 

to offer amendments not included on the roster including those to 

the manager’s amendment and the amendment in the nature of a 

substitute? 

Chairman GORDON. If additional amendments are offered, yes, 

sir. 

Mr. HALL. In the case of a Member not being present to offer his 

or her amendment listed on the roster, is it the Chairman’s intention that the amendment may be offered by another member or 

may be offered by the Member when the Member returns at the 

end of the roster? 

Chairman GORDON. That is correct. 

Mr. HALL. I thank the Chairman for reviewing the process for 

today, and I withdraw my reservation. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Hall. 

Let me just say, so everyone knows our process today, we have 

a lot of amendments, almost—we are going to be approaching 60, 

but they are all reasonable amendments and they deserve to have 

consideration. I am expecting that we are going to have votes 

around noon, and so I doubt that we will be through by noon so 

at that time we will notice when we will get started again. It will 

be shortly thereafter. We have pizza that will be available on a bipartisan basis. Well, maybe. We will see how Dr. Broun is acting. 

He may have to get a permit. But it will be in the Chairman’s office. We will have pizza. There will probably be additional votes, 

a series maybe around 1:30 or 2:00, and then we will be in session 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
517 

until 7:00. My hope is that we will be through long before 7:00, but 

if not, we will proceed until we complete the bill and everybody has 

a chance to say what they want to say. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, will the minority have a right 

to have a part in the decision of what goes on those pizzas, what 

the toppings will be? 

Chairman GORDON. You will have a third of the pizza. 

Mr. BROUN. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Dr. Broun. 

Mr. BROUN. I ask unanimous consent that I may have a permit 

for the pizza. 

Chairman GORDON. Without objection. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. We are going to have a quick gavel on that 

one. 

So without further objection, or without objection, so ordered. 

The first amendment on the roster is a manager’s amendment offered by the Chair. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 041, amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Gordon of Tennessee. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize myself for 

five minutes to explain the amendment. 

The manager’s amendment I offer makes several technical and 

minor changes to the base text. The most significant part of the 

amendment is changes to many of the bill’s authorization levels. 

During the subcommittee process, several amendments were offered to reduce the authorization level in the bill. At the first markup in the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, Mrs. Biggert 

had an amendment that she withdrew on my commitment to address the authorization levels at Full Committee. I appreciate the 

patience of the members and willingness to work with us to address this in a holistic way. 

Overall, the funding changes in the amendment will reduce authorization levels in this bill by just over 10 percent. We maintain 

a 10-year doubling path by growing the authorization for each 

agency at approximately seven percent annually. The funding path 

provides a modest cushion above the President’s request in the 

event that our deficits come down and more funds are available. 

And at the same time, we provide a stable, sustainable and achievable set of authorization levels across the agencies. These levels are 

lower than I would like them to be, but I believe they are practical 

considering our current budget deficits. At a time of flat discretionary budgets, a seven percent growth rate for continued progress 

in getting our research programs back on a path to be the best in 

the world I think is a good investment in our children’s future. 

Is there further discussion on the amendment? Mr. Hall is recognized. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. By reducing the authorization funding level, the manager’s amendment moves the bill I think 

in the right direction. It also addresses some of the Members’ concerns. I appreciate the gentleman’s continued willingness to work 

with our side to improve this bill. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
518 

Unfortunately, I am a little disappointed to see that you have removed the language that we both worked so diligently on to have 

placed in the 2007 version of COMPETES regarding the Noyce 

Scholarship Program. It was taken out in conference. I appreciate 

your including it in the underlying measure before us today. 

I know you and I both agree that we want to see all of our students reap the benefits of having the best math and science teachers we can possibly get. We recognize the unique challenges of 

‘‘high-need schools’’ and the underlying bill, by providing an additional incentive for these new trained teachers to be there, but we 

also allowed flexibility for them to teach in any school. I am just 

wondering why that provision is being removed in this amendment. 

Regardless, it is my hope that we can further improve the bill moving forward today. Even after factoring in the lower authorization 

number in the manager’s amendment, the bill still calls for billions 

in new spending. 

I thank the Chairman. I yield back my time. 

Chairman GORDON. Does any else wish to be recognized? Mrs. 

Biggert is recognized. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. I move to strike the last word. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for working on the authorization. I 

will just take a minute to say thank you. I think in these economic 

times, it is very important that we try and get by on the amount 

that is needed, but I do think, as we have talked about physical 

science, that this is a very important bill and thank you for all the 

work you have done on it, and I think that the authorization really 

helps to be fiscally responsible, and I appreciate you working with 

me and I yield back. 

Chairman GORDON. I will say to the gentlelady, again, in a perfect world, you and I would like to see even more investment in 

these areas and think it is a good investment. We try to be sensitive to the fact that, again, these are difficult times and we wanted to try to make—again, a 10 percent reduction I think is a pretty 

significant reduction over the original proposal. 

Let me also say that you will find at your desk a list of endorsements. These are just a few of the first endorsements that are coming in. There are literally going to be hundreds of endorsements before this bill is over with: the National Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, the Business Roundtable, the 

entire university and research community. So again, I think they 

recognize the benefit of this and I think some of them also had the 

same concerns you did and that is why we tried to address them, 

and I thank you for that. 

Okay. The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Broun. Are you ready to 

proceed with your amendment? 

Mr. BROUN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the 

desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 172, amendment offered by Mr. 

Broun of Georgia to the amendment offered by Mr. Gordon of Tennessee. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
519 

I now recognize the gentleman for five minutes. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have this amendment 

that I was very pleased to hear the Chairman say he is concerned 

about our children’s future, and this is just a commonsense amendment that will help ensure our children’s economic future, I believe. 

This amendment would help our Committee conduct more effective oversight and financial stewardship over the entire COMPETES program. It simply keeps intact the first three years of authorized spending at fiscal year 2010 appropriations level through 

fiscal year 2013 for NSF [National Science Foundation], NIST, the 

Office of Science and ARPA–E sections in the manager’s amendment but it strikes out the two-year funding levels for fiscal year 

2014 and 2015. It will reduce the authorized spending by over $45 

billion. Eight point two billion will be reduced in the first three 

years by extending the fiscal year 2010 base levels and $37 billion 

will be saved by striking out the last two years. The three-year authorization level is consistent with the original 2007 COMPETES 

authorization, and with that authorization, we found plenty to 

change. 

According to CBO [Congressional Budget Office], the President’s 

budget raises the deficit to $1.5 trillion in 2010, and our debt held 

by the public is ever growing as well as is unsustainable. Additionally, this reauthorization goes beyond the President’s request. At 

an economic time such as now, why do we need to extend the COMPETES authorization to five years? The fiscally responsible course 

to follow for our Committee is to keep these sections in the reauthorization at the 2010 appropriated level and at a three-year authorization timeline. At the end of three years, or beforehand, our 

Committee can always come back to the drawing board and assess 

how these agencies are living up to their commitments. 

I urge the Committee to support this amendment by keeping the 

authorized funding at the 2010 appropriated levels for those sections that we have listed in this amendment and by reducing the 

authorization timeline to three years so that we can have the opportunity to better review the entire COMPETES program at that 

time. 

Mr. Chairman, I have a reference chart that I would ask unanimous consent to be entered into the record at this point. 

Chairman GORDON. The gentleman concludes? 

Mr. BROUN. I just asked unanimous—yes, I yield back for a 

unanimous consent request to put the reference charts into the 

record at this point. 

[The information follows:] 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
520 

Chairman GORDON. Certainly. Without objection. 

Mr. BROUN. Mr. Chairman, we do need to have innovation. We 

do need to have a reauthorization, but our children’s future really 

is dependent upon not only research and development from the 

science and technology perspective but also in the area of fiscal responsibility. This committee has an opportunity with this amendment to show fiscal responsibility to the American public, and it is 

absolutely time that we do that. It is past time that we do that. 

And I just hope that the Chairman and my Democratic colleagues 

will support this amendment. It is a common sense amendment. It 

doesn’t stop the research and development. It is a fiscally conservative, common sense amendment, and the simple truth is, we drastically need it for our children and grandchildren’s future. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back and I thank the Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Dr. Broun, and the Chairman 

yields to himself. 

Certainly, I think we all agree at this podium that we need to 

be fiscally responsible, but we also have to invest in our future in 

those areas that need to be. As was mentioned earlier, we make 

a 10 percent reduction in the original authorization level. I think 

that shows good faith in moving that direction. But changing an 

authorization from five years to three years really doesn’t save 

money. You have got the same amount being spent in those first 

three years. So I think we really need the five years to have consistency with research. The original COMPETES was authorized 

for three years, and the reason for that is, it was a new bill, and 

so we felt it needed a shorter period of time. But I think now we 

need to get into the continuity. I think that this committee I am 

sure will continue with oversight over these next one, two, three, 

four and five years, if there need to be changes that can be made 

at that time. But I think it would be a false savings to just move 

a five-year bill to a three-year bill. 

Now I recognize— 

Mr. BROUN. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. I yield my time to Dr. Broun. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGhr5116231a.eps
521 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

By cutting it to three years, it doesn’t stop this committee from 

coming back to the drawing board. Also, this amendment does reduce the spending because it reduces it down to fiscal year 2010 

levels so it does actually save money and does help preserve our 

children and grandchildren’s future. So I agree with the Chairman, 

we do need to have innovation, we do need to have the research 

and development. This amendment will not stop those from going 

forward, and as a scientist I believe very firmly in research and development and believe in these programs, but it will cut spending 

if this amendment is adopted. It will help preserve our children 

and grandchildren’s future and it doesn’t stop this committee from 

coming back. 

But most importantly, I think this helps us with oversight, and 

it will give us ability to have more oversight on this so that we 

have these entities in the Federal Government come back to this 

committee and help us to have a greater watchful eye over what 

is going on there. And so it is for the oversight as well as for the 

reduced spending that I offer this amendment. 

I thank the Chairman for yielding. 

Chairman GORDON. Is there further discussion on the amendment? 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Hall is recognized. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Dr. Broun, I thank 

you too, and I thank Dr. Broun for offering this amendment and 

point out how dramatically our fiscal situation has changed since 

we originally passed this bill. In 2007, when the Committee first 

passed COMPETES, the federal budget deficit was projected at 

$160 billion and the national debt was $8 trillion. This year, the 

deficit is projected to be almost $1.6 trillion, 10 times higher, and 

the national debt is over $12 trillion, a 50 percent increase in less 

than three years. We simply can’t continue to spend as if we aren’t 

in a budget crisis. 

This amendment recognizes that, and I thank Dr. Broun for offering it. I yield back my time. 

Chairman GORDON. Dr. Baird is recognized. 

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I will just make two points. First of all, at the end of the Clinton Administration, there was a $200 billion plus surplus in the federal budget. By the end of the Bush Administration, there was a $1.3 trillion deficit. The national debt 

had doubled. Our dependency on foreign borrowing had doubled, 

and that includes countries like China that are not our best 

friends. Many of my colleagues on the other side voted repeatedly 

for budgets that did not fully fund the war, voted for tax cuts that 

were not paid for and so I applaud them for at long last caring 

about the deficit. 

The problem here, however, is that this resolution actually undermines science and doesn’t, in fact, save any money. It won’t save 

money and it is not fiscally responsible for two reasons. First of all, 

we are going to continue the National Science Foundation funding 

unless the gentleman is proposing we actually terminate it. There 

is nothing in this amendment, there is nothing that can prevent 

any future Congress from looking at with full oversight the NSF 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
522 

as they ought to do all the others, NIST, NSF, ARPA–E. We ought 

to do that an annual basis and in fact we do as responsible chairs. 

So this is largely a specious amendment, I am sorry to say, and it 

won’t save any money but it will undermine science if it were to 

pass. And the reason for that is, scientific research, as a scientist 

who has actually published in international scientific journals myself, scientific research sometimes takes several years to complete 

and it takes several years to plan, and if you have uncertainty 

about whether the funding will be there, you can’t pursue those 

avenues of research. So in fact what would happen if we did this 

was we would actually weaken the scientific endeavor, reduce 

America’s competitiveness, which is the antithesis of the intent of 

this bill, and undermine the fundamental premise of the blue ribbon panel that wrote Rising Above the Gathering Storm. 

So I don’t plan to make those points too many more times, because I think they ought to serve as a basis for future discussion 

when these deficit arguments arise and amendments to purport to 

reduce the deficit are offered that, in fact, would not reduce the 

deficit one iota, but would in fact undermine our scientific mission. 

I yield back. 

Mr. BROUN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. BAIRD. I am sorry, Mr. Broun. I already yielded back. 

Chairman GORDON. Who was it that asked for time? Dr. Broun, 

you can have your own time. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Baird, I have been a great critic of our President and our 

Congress creating the large debt that has been created, and as the 

gentleman from Washington knows, I wasn’t here to vote on all 

those bills and I think it was wrong, but it does not matter what 

happened in the past. We must deal with the future. And the deficit is at $1.6 trillion currently, and if we had an unlimited amount 

of funds, there are a lot of great things that could be done but as 

families look to balance their budget, as small businesses and large 

businesses look at trying to have a balanced budget within their 

businesses, as my own State of Georgia has to balance its budget, 

it is critical that the Federal Government balance its budget, and 

we are just not doing that, and continuing the spending at the level 

that we are growing this Federal Government is just unsustainable 

and it is just—actually, as far as I am concerned, it is criminal because we are stealing our children and grandchildren’s future and 

we have just got to stop the spending. 

So there are many great things that can be done, many great 

things that I would like to see done, but continuing to spend money 

that we don’t have, borrowing money from China—we just recently 

had a bond auction where there weren’t enough people there to bid 

on our bonds, and we are getting at the point where we are going 

to have a financial collapse of this country if we don’t stop the 

spending. 

I am not in favor of cutting these programs. I am just saying that 

we need to hold the line for a while, get us out of this economic 

downturn and then we can go forward. It is time for us to put the 

constraints on the spending of Congress. It is past time. And I 

don’t care whether it is Republicans or Democrats running this 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
523 

Congress. We have got to stop the spending. It is just stealing our 

children and our grandchildren’s future. 

And I appreciate the gentleman’s concern and I appreciate his 

scientific inquiry and his publishing but if we just hold the line for 

a while and get this economy going again, by stimulating the private sector instead of stimulating government, then we can have 

more money to spend on further research and development. It is 

time to just kind of rein things in for a bit so that we can go forward. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Dr. Broun. We will have an opportunity to discuss this three or four more times on these next 

amendments. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Dr. Bartlett. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you. I am somewhat conflicted. I am one 

of only 18 in this House that voted against all of the bailout stimulus programs and so I don’t need to defend my conservative credentials, but I will tell you that—and I have more children and 

grandchildren than anyone else here, I think, 17 grandchildren and 

two great-grandchildren, and I am really concerned about their future. And one of my concerns is that we are losing the technology 

battle to other countries. This year China will graduate seven 

times as many engineers as we graduate. And so I think one of the 

best things that I can do for my kids and my grandkids and my 

great-grandkids is to make sure that we have the technology base. 

By the way, if we had been doing this 20 years ago, we wouldn’t 

have the fiscal problems we have today because we would be competing better. 

Very sadly, just a couple of weeks ago, the last 330 manufacturers of what used to be one of the largest solar cell manufacturing 

companies in the world, Solarex, now BP Solar, was shut down in 

my district. So I think that our kids’ future is going to be better 

if we invest in these technologies because we are going to then be 

able to compete internationally. If we don’t, I have some serious 

concerns about our future. 

I don’t need to defend my conservative credentials. You know, I 

think that as a true conservative, you really need to be looking for 

what will be best for your kids in the future, and I think expanding 

our technology base is what we ought to be doing. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. BARTLETT. I would be happy to yield. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you. 

I would like to attach my remarks to those of Dr. Baird and Dr. 

Bartlett. For those with Dr. Baird, it would be in remarks after the 

political commercial. 

I would agree that this is something that we have to do, and so 

many times on this committee that we have always been behind 

other committees as far as, you know, what we need to do. Research and development is the most important thing that we can 

do for the innovation and creativity and I think that we have to— 

we really have to move ahead and do this. If we want to improve 

the economy, if we want to have the jobs, this is the way to do it, 

and I know the economic times but I think I would agree that I 

would be opposed to this amendment. Yield back. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
524 

Chairman GORDON. That sounds like a statement from a good 

Stanford graduate. 

Is there—Mr. Diaz-Balart, do you— 

Mrs. BIGGERT. I did notice that Stanford was on the list. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Chairman, I promise to be brief. I just want 

to support Mr. Broun’s amendment. 

Look, you know, if we don’t control our spending appetite, we are 

not going to have to worry about our technology advantage or our 

economic advantage or our military advantage. We are going to 

have to worry about it as much as Argentina is worrying about it 

or Greece is worrying about it right now. We are at a crossroads, 

ladies and gentlemen, where we are bankrupting the country, and 

we are going to have to do our part. That is the decision we have 

to make and we can always spend good money after good money 

or good money after bad money but we need to start doing our part. 

I am not blaming anybody, but we need to start controlling our appetite for this spending. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. If there is no further discussion on the 

amendment, then the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, 

say aye. Opposed, no. The no’s have it and the— 

Mr. BROUN. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. —amendment is not agreed to— 

Mr. BROUN. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. —and the clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Chairman Gordon? 

Chairman GORDON. No. 

The CLERK. Chairman Gordon votes no. Mr. Costello? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Johnson? 

Ms. JOHNSON. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Johnson votes no. Ms. Woolsey? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Wu? 

Mr. WU. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wu votes no. Mr. Baird? 

Mr. BAIRD. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Baird votes no. Mr. Miller? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Lipinski? 

Mr. LIPINSKI. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lipinski votes no. Ms. Giffords? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Edwards? 

Ms. EDWARDS. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Edwards votes no. Ms. Fudge? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Luja ́n? 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Luja ́n votes no. Mr. Tonko? 

Mr. TONKO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Tonko votes no. Mr. Garamendi? 

Mr. GARAMENDI. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Garamendi votes no. Mr. Rothman? 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
525 

Mr. ROTHMAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rothman votes no. Mr. Matheson? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Davis? 

Mr. DAVIS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Davis votes no. Mr. Chandler? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Carnahan? 

Mr. CARNAHAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Carnahan votes no. Mr. Hill? 

Mr. HILL. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hill votes no. Mr. Mitchell? 

Mr. MITCHELL. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Mitchell votes no. Mr. Wilson? 

Mr. WILSON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wilson votes no. Mrs. Dahlkemper? 

Mrs. DAHLKEMPER. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Dahlkemper votes no. Mr. Grayson? 

Mr. GRAYSON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Grayson votes no. Ms. Kosmas? 

Ms. KOSMAS. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Kosmas votes no. Mr. Peters? 

Mr. PETERS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Peters votes no. Mr. Hall? 

Mr. HALL. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hall votes aye. Mr. Sensenbrenner? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Lamar Smith? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye. Mr. Bartlett? 

Mr. BARTLETT. Present. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bartlett votes present. Mr. Ehlers? 

Mr. EHLERS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers votes no. Mr. Lucas? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mrs. Biggert? 

Mrs. BIGGERT. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Biggert votes no. Mr. Akin? 

Mr. AKIN. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Akin votes aye. Mr. Neugebauer? 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer votes aye. Mr. Inglis? 

Mr. INGLIS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis votes aye. Mr. McCaul? 

Mr. MCCAUL. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. McCaul votes aye. Mr. Diaz-Balart? 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Diaz-Balart votes aye. Mr. Bilbray? 

Mr. BILBRAY. Bilbray votes aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bilbray votes aye. Mr. Adrian Smith? 

Mr. SMITH OF NEBRASKA. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Adrian Smith votes aye. Mr. Broun? 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
526 

Mr. BROUN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Broun votes aye. Mr. Olson? 

Mr. OLSON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Olson votes aye. 

Chairman GORDON. Has everyone been—Mr. Miller. 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Miller votes no. 

The CLERK. Mr. Miller votes no. 

Chairman GORDON. Ms. Fudge? 

Ms. FUDGE. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Fudge votes no. 

Chairman GORDON. If there is no one—Mr. Matheson. 

The CLERK. Mr. Matheson votes no. 

Chairman GORDON. If there is no one else, then the clerk will report the vote. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, 11 Members vote aye, 24 Members 

vote no and one Member votes present. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
527 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116a.eps
528 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I have the next amendment on 

the roster. 

Chairman GORDON. The next amendment on the roster is an 

amendment by the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Diaz-Balart. Are 

you ready to proceed with your amendment? 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 023, amendment offered by Mr. 

Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida to the amendment offered by Mr. Gordon of Tennessee. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

I now recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his 

amendment. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will 

try to be a little bit more brief if possible. 

Passing the manager’s amendment before us would authorize 

over $83.9 billion over five and ten years, and also there are parts 

in bill that say ‘‘in addition to such sums.’’ There is a lot of provisions regarding ‘‘such sums.’’ I think it is important to go over 

some of the spending details, and again, I must say that I do want 

to thank the Chairman for his willingness to work with us and listen to us but I do think it is important to kind of find out where 

we are. 

In the first year of funding of the bill, it recommends an increase 

of $345 million above the Administration’s request. Remember that 

the President’s budget last year was $3.6 trillion with revenues of 

$2.4 trillion. Now, I know a lot of people are to blame for sins of 

the past and that is okay. This year the President’s budget recommendation is $3.8 trillion. Here is the problem. Revenues are 

$2.6 trillion. This bill goes above the President’s recommended levels. I will put it in perspective. ARPA–E, which was funded for the 

first time in the stimulus, is really a brand-new program, and the 

bill more than triples its funding over five years to $1 billion and 

it extends it through fiscal year 2020 with ‘‘such sums as necessary.’’ Again, all this funding amounts to over $83.9 billion, 

which is $20 billion over in new funding, or 32.9 percent above the 

current baseline. 

So let me tell you what this amendment does. First, this amendment, very similar to what Dr. Broun was trying to do, this amendment would simply strike out the out-year fundings in the bill to 

make it a three-year bill, which is consistent with America, the 

original America COMPETES bill, which has received so much 

praise. This would allow our Committee to conduct more effective 

oversight of the entire COMPETES program and then coming back 

in three years to review and consider that. Now, hopefully in three 

years maybe the deficit has been reduced and maybe our fiscal situation is in better shape. We can see then if we need to cut money 

or to even increase funding for the COMPETES program, and we 

can also find out what works. All it does is, it forces us to look at 

the issue in three years. But most importantly, the amendment 

would reduce the authorized spending in this bill by $37 billion by 

striking the out-year funding. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
529 

The second part of the amendment still places the three priority 

agencies, the Office of Science, NIST and the National Science 

Foundation, on a doubling path over 10 years using the fiscal year 

2010 appropriated levels. It doubles the appropriated levels as opposed to what the bill does. This would reduce authorized funding 

by $1.2 billion in 2011 through 2013. The amendment prioritizes 

core research at the three main agencies and it gives them really 

huge increases, I will tell you, which has obviously been a recommendation of the science and business communities. And again, 

we are able to then prioritize. 

In conclusion, this amendment would reduce the total authorization by $38.22 billion, and as Mr. Broun was saying, you know, we 

can point toward the past, and Mr. Baird is a dear friend of mine, 

and I have had these discussions in the Budget Committee many 

times over and we can complain about the doubling of the debt and 

the deficit during the last Administration. That is a worthwhile 

complaint, and I agree with them there. But then should we triple 

the thing that we criticized and say it is okay? Well, here we have 

an opportunity to just do a small part, our part to just say we are 

still going to double the funding but let us just to make it a little 

bit less painful, a little bit less money on our children and our 

grandchildren’s credit card. That is all this does. 

I thank the Chairman for his willingness to always listen to me 

and he has been extremely cooperative, but I think this is a step 

in the right direction. It doesn’t hurt the program. It still increases 

funding dramatically but it does at least show that we are willing 

to at least recognize that we have a serious problem and that we 

do not want to be the next Greece or the next Argentina, and the 

American people know that we are at a crossroads right now 

whether we are going to leave our country, whether our children 

are going to continue to live in the freest, most prosperous country 

or whether we are going to change that. 

This is a small step in the right direction. I urge your support 

of the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, and I thank my friend from Florida and recognize myself for five minutes. 

Again, I think that this committee made more than just a small 

recognition or a small acknowledgement by cutting the original recommendation by 10 percent. I think that was a significant cut, a 

significant recognition of the situation we are in. Obviously the appropriators will make the final decision and they will have the leeway to do that. 

So if there is no further discussion— 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Hall is recognized. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about prioritizing, 

and we simply don’t have enough money to pay for everything we 

want to do so we have to prioritize. Mr. Diaz-Balart’s amendment 

does exactly that by providing for increases to research at the three 

priority agencies identified by the Committee in 2007, NSF, DOE 

Office of Science and NIST, while holding ARPA–E flat. This would 

trim over $1 billion from the authorized levels in the first three 

years of the bill, many more billions by striking the out-year funding. It is a good amendment. I strongly support it. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
530 

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Dr. Bartlett is recognized. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Yes, I am going to use a technique that Rush 

Limbaugh callers use to try and shorten the debate here. I am 

going to say ‘‘ditto,’’ which incorporates my previous remarks. 

Thank you very much and I yield back. 

Chairman GORDON. And ditto to you. 

If there is no further discussion, then the vote occurs on the 

amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The amendment 

fails and—the clerk will be glad to call the roll. 

The CLERK. Chairman Gordon? 

Chairman GORDON. No. 

The CLERK. Chairman Gordon votes no. Mr. Costello? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Johnson? 

Ms. JOHNSON. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Johnson votes no. Ms. Woolsey? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Wu? 

Mr. WU. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wu votes no. Mr. Baird? 

Mr. BAIRD. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Baird votes no. Mr. Miller? 

Mr. MILLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Miller votes no. Mr. Lipinski? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Giffords? 

Ms. GIFFORDS. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Giffords votes no. Ms. Edwards? 

Ms. EDWARDS. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Edwards votes no. Ms. Fudge? 

Ms. FUDGE. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Fudge votes no. Mr. Luja ́n? 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Luja ́n votes no. Mr. Tonko? 

Mr. TONKO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Tonko votes no. Mr. Garamendi? 

Mr. GARAMENDI. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Garamendi votes no. Mr. Rothman? 

Mr. ROTHMAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rothman votes no. Mr. Matheson? 

Mr. MATHESON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Matheson votes no. Mr. Davis? 

Mr. DAVIS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Davis votes no. Mr. Chandler? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Carnahan? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Hill? 

Mr. HILL. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hill votes no. Mr. Mitchell? 

Mr. MITCHELL. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Mitchell votes no. Mr. Wilson? 

Mr. WILSON. No. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
531 

The CLERK. Mr. Wilson votes no. Mr. Dahlkemper? 

Mrs. DAHLKEMPER. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Dahlkemper votes no. Mr. Grayson? 

Mr. GRAYSON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Grayson votes no. Ms. Kosmas? 

Ms. KOSMAS. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Kosmas votes no. Mr. Peters? 

Mr. PETERS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Peters votes no. Mr. Hall? 

Mr. HALL. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hall votes aye. Mr. Sensenbrenner? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Lamar Smith? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye. Mr. Bartlett? 

Mr. BARTLETT. Present. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bartlett votes present. Mr. Ehlers? 

Mr. EHLERS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers votes no. Mr. Lucas? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mrs. Biggert? 

Mrs. BIGGERT. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Biggert votes no. Mr. Akin? 

Mr. AKIN. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Akin votes aye. Mr. Neugebauer? 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer votes aye. Mr. Inglis? 

Mr. INGLIS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis votes aye. Mr. McCaul? 

Mr. MCCAUL. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. McCaul votes aye. Mr. Diaz-Balart? 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Diaz-Balart votes aye. Mr. Bilbray? 

Mr. BILBRAY. Bilbray votes aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bilbray votes aye. Mr. Adrian Smith? 

Mr. SMITH OF NEBRASKA. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Adrian Smith votes aye. Mr. Broun? 

Mr. BROUN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Broun votes aye. Mr. Olson? 

Mr. OLSON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Olson votes aye. 

Chairman GORDON. Have all Members been recorded? 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Lipinski? 

The CLERK. Mr. Lipinski is not recorded. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lipinski votes no. 

Chairman GORDON. And what was Mr. Lipinski’s time? 

Mr. LIPINSKI. I am not sure. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Carnahan? 

The CLERK. Mr. Carnahan is not recorded. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. No. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
532 

The CLERK. Mr. Carnahan votes no. 

Chairman GORDON. Does anyone else wish to be recorded? If not, 

the clerk will report the vote. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, I have 11 members voting aye, 25 

voting no and one present. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
533 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116b.eps
534 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you. The nays prevail. 

The next amendment, the fourth amendment on the roster is also 

offered by the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Diaz-Balart. Are you 

ready to proceed with your amendment? 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 022, amendment offered by Mr. 

Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida to the amendment offered by Mr. Gordon of Tennessee. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

I now recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his 

amendment. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I am going 

to be more brief because I kind of have an inkling of where things 

are going. Just call me crazy, but I am good at grasping the obvious. 

Mr. Chairman, very similar, this amendment would simply strike 

out the last—the out-year funding of the bill to make it a threeyear bill. By doing that, it would reduce spending in this bill by 

$37.02 billion. I think we have already heard the arguments and 

I don’t think, Mr. Chairman, that we need to hear them again. 

Chairman GORDON. I think Mr. Diaz-Balart has given us all the 

arguments here. So is there any further discussion? 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Hall 

Mr. HALL. I will be brief. I am for it. 

Chairman GORDON. As Mr. Diaz-Balart has said, we have discussed this a variety of time already. By cutting from five to three, 

you don’t really save any money for those first three years and we 

lose the continuity in the out years. 

So if there is no further discussion, all in favor of the amendment 

say aye. Opposed, no. The no’s have it and the amendment is not 

agreed to. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I have an inquiry of the Chair. 

Chairman GORDON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment later on 

which would have been if this were to pass in another part of the 

bill. Should I withdraw that now or—because I think I kind of 

know where that is going to go as well. 

Chairman GORDON. I would defer to your counsel. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Okay. We can withdraw then later, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Chairman GORDON. The next amendment on the roster is an 

amendment offered by the gentleman from California. Are you 

ready to proceed with your amendment? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I am, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 038, amendment offered by Mr. 

Rohrabacher of California to the amendment offered by Mr. Gordon 

of Tennessee. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
535 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

This amendment reduces the authorization for ARPA–E, specifically ARPA–E, from 10 years in the current legislation to three 

years, and let us just note that we have responsibility in this committee not only for authorization but also oversight. The responsibility of this committee is not just to authorize but to oversee 

spending. I believe that providing us a little extra time before we 

authorize something for 10 years that we need some more time for 

oversight. 

Let me just, before I go on with the rest of this presentation in 

terms of my amendment, I would like to thank the Chairman for 

the good job that he has done and for the very fair and efficient 

way that he has handled this committee and put up with us who 

have some fundamental disagreements with him. You will be 

missed as Chairman of this committee, and I just thought I would 

mention that before I go on with these arguments. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher, but you are 

not going to miss me for a while because I am going to be around 

and we will be working together on some things. 

Let me just, for the record, be sure that it is noted that the last 

amendment did not pass. Also, Mr. Rohrabacher, certainly you 

know I have an affection for ARPA–E and you are doing what you 

think is best for the country and there is nothing personal whatsoever. Once again, this committee will have the option to have oversight. We can have it every day, every week, however you want to 

do it. So I think there will be plenty of oversight on ARPA–E, and 

I welcome it. I think that the more daylight it gets, the better it 

is going to look, and so— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, let me explain briefly, Mr. Chairman, 

reclaiming my time— 

Chairman GORDON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —why I believe that for us to have proper 

oversight we cannot just simply authorize this effort for 10 years 

out before we have actually been able to assess what has happened 

in its first full year of funding. ARPA–E, which is a concept that 

I support, has just embarked on its mission and we need to find 

out whether or not as the program is actually being handled 

whether or not they are really funding high-risk projects or whether they are funding projects that could have happened anyway, are 

they really funding projects that are unique enough that they need 

to be spending the money in that area rather than perhaps funding 

projects that are duplicative of things in other parts of Department 

of Energy, for example. So it would seem to me that before we actually even have one year of activity on the part of ARPA–E that we 

then authorize it for 10 years out. What is the harm of saying we 

are only going to do this for three years and then we will assess 

the job that ARPA–E is doing to see if it is indeed meeting the 

goals that we had in mind when ARPA–E passed in the first place. 

So this gives us a chance not just to spend money, and as people 

can tell by the record, we have a difference of opinion as to what 

level of spending is justified, but beyond that, we should make sure 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
536 

that whatever money is spent, there shouldn’t be any argument 

over what money is spent whether or not we are actually providing 

the oversight to make sure the money is being spent wisely, and 

my amendment would simply give this committee the opportunity 

to assess ARPA–E after its first three years of active duty and to 

see whether or not some changes need to be made rather than authorizing it out for a 10-year period. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman GORDON. Dr. Baird is recognized. 

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, in listening to the argument that by 

shortening an authorization we somehow save money for the taxpayer, I think I am going to save my family money by just not feeding my kids. They are five now, and once they reach seven I am 

just going to quit feeding them and that is going to help my budget 

a great deal because we will save a lot of money by not feeding 

them. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is not my argument about saving 

money. 

Mr. BAIRD. Okay. Well, let us deal with the second question, 

which is, your quote was, ‘‘What is the harm?’’ I think we have described the harm. The harm is, you undermine the ability of individuals, organizations, businesses, et cetera to make plans on the 

anticipation that there will be a reliable opportunity to compete for 

these funds. 

As far as the oversight, you know, I spent three days participating in the ARPA–E forum that they had over at the National 

Harbor, and I will tell you, speaking personally, I think ARPA–E 

is the most exciting thing happening in the United States Government today. I truly believe that. I honestly do. I think if there is 

anything that has come out of this Congress in the last four or five 

years that is really going to turn this country around, it is going 

to be something that emerges from the funding from ARPA–E. 

That is why I am so excited about it. 

I share passionately my colleagues’, Mr. Diaz-Balart, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Broun’s commitment to trying to reduce our deficit. 

I honestly believe that one of the things that is going to help reduce our deficit in the long run is ARPA–E because it is going to 

reduce our dependency on foreign oil, because it is going to lower 

our energy consumption and because it is going to make America 

so competitive with the rest of the world. 

And the final point I would make is, if you compare what we are 

spending on ARPA–E with other spending in this bill, it is actually 

relatively small, and more problematic still, if you compare what 

we are spending on ARPA–E with what other nations, notably 

China and other countries are spending on their energy research 

budget, it is frighteningly small, and so for that reason I would certainly not want to cut either the funding levels or the duration of 

ARPA–E. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. BAIRD. I would be happy to yield. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And I appreciate your passion for ARPA–E 

and its mission, and I happen to believe that the mission is a good 

mission. But again, I don’t really think that you have addressed 

the idea of why then should we not—why should we just give it a 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
537 

10-year authorization rather than saying after three years we are 

going to find out, see if we can perfect it even more, or we can then 

take a look and make sure it is doing the job that you so passionately believe it should be doing. 

Mr. BAIRD. I think three years is just too brief. I just think, you 

know, if you—the way ARPA–E is working is, they are having 

funding put out in tranches, so they are now on their third, and 

if you look at the diversity of technologies, but, you know, these 

things take some time to build up and people are going to be saying, okay, so we are going to try to get our research and engineering and production, et cetera, to a point where we think we can 

compete meaningfully for ARPA–E, and that may take them several years to get there and at some times they are going to be rejected by ARPA–E in one of the application processes. They are 

going to go back to the drawing board as good scientists and engineers do and they are going to come back and make another run 

at it and they will have something better. But if we say to them, 

you know, you really can’t count on ARPA–E being there in the 

long run or even in the relatively near run, I think we are going 

to set that back. And we may disagree. You know, maybe somewhere between three and ten years we might find agreement. I 

think three is too short. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Hall is recognized. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I actually support Mr. Rohrabacher’s 

amendment. I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend because 

ARPA–E is still in the formative stages. It makes a lot of sense to 

keep this authorization shorter so Congress could reevaluate it in 

a couple of years and address any concerns or problems. 

Yield back my time, and I thank Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Hall. 

Let me just remind Mr. Rohrabacher that any program that can 

be authorized can be unauthorized and so we do not have to wait 

to the end of it. We can have, and I would hope there will be frequent transparent oversight. I think it is sort of like you, Mr. Rohrabacher, the more you see, the more you will like it. 

So if there no further discussion, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor of the amendment say aye. Those opposed say 

no. The amendment is not agreed to. 

The sixth amendment, the next amendment on the roster is an 

amendment offered also by the gentleman from California. Mr. 

Rohrabacher, are you ready to proceed with your amendment? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I am. 

Chairman GORDON. I have an amendment at the desk. Excuse 

me. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 033, amendment offered by Mr. 

Rohrabacher of California to the amendment offered by Mr. Gordon 

of Tennessee. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. This second amendment actually instead of 

taking the authorization down to three years, understanding the 

wisdom of Mr. Baird’s last statement, perhaps three years wasn’t 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
538 

responsible or reasonable enough and actually this just takes the 

authorization down to five years and, I would add, it makes the authorization of ARPA–E consistent with the authorization in the rest 

of this legislation, and so that is basically it. The arguments still 

hold. Hopefully this is more reasonable and meets Mr. Baird’s 

threshold. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Rohrabacher, in respect to your good 

faith, we will accept this amendment. 

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I just want to echo that myself. Personally, I think that is a timeline that makes good sense to me and 

I am happy to support as well. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I accept your acceptance. 

Chairman GORDON. It is my understanding that—oh, let us see. 

If there is no further discussion, all those in favor say aye. Opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and Mr. Rohrabacher wins one. 

I understand that Mrs. Biggert wants to be recognized. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the 

desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 102, offered by Mrs. Biggert of 

Illinois to the amendment offered by Mr. Gordon of Tennessee. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentlelady for five minutes to explain her amendment. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you. 

This is an amendment which would reduce the funding per year 

on page 16 of the bill. I am sorry. I am having a little trouble locating this. Several of my colleagues before me have proposed ways 

to reduce the proposed spending of ARPA–E, and I didn’t want to 

cut the years off the authorization. I don’t think that is the best 

way to go. But I thought maybe I could propose slightly lower numbers that might meet a compromise. I appreciate all you have done 

to consider our spending concerns and thought that we might be 

able to work together to lower ARPA–E’s funding levels as we have 

in other parts of the bill since we did take out the clause that the 

Office of Science would be funded before the dollars went to ARPA– 

E. 

In testimony before this committee, Secretary Chu suggested the 

funding levels proposed in your amendment but that was before he 

was the Secretary. In fact, it was in 2006 and a lot has changed 

since that time. 

So this would propose that the funding levels would be $300 million in 2011, $400 million in 2012, $500 in 2013 and then in 2014 

$600 million and $700 million for fiscal year 2015, and I think that 

would actually cut the authorization from $2.1 billion—from $3.1 

billion to $2.1 billion, and I would ask for your consideration. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you. The Chairman recognizes himself for five minutes. 

Once again, I will remind everyone that we have already cut this 

bill by over 10 percent. The out-year number for ARPA–E was the 

minimum number that was recommended by the Rising Above the 

Gathering Storm committee. 

Is there anyone else? 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
539 

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Dr. Bartlett. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Yes. There is a little confusion here because I 

thought the amendment before us was your manager’s amendment. 

Her amendment to the amendment is on page 16 of the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 

Mr. Gordon of Tennessee. When does that come before us? 

Chairman GORDON. The manager’s amendment has already 

been— 

Mr. BARTLETT. You have two amendments. You have the manager’s amendment and then you have the amendment to the manager’s amendment, and her amendment is to the amendment to the 

manager’s amendment, not to the manager’s amendment. 

Chairman GORDON. I am advised that— 

Mr. BARTLETT. I looked for page 16 in the manager’s amendment 

with numbers on it in vain. Then I found the amendment to the 

amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Gordon, 

and sure enough, on page 16 of that amendment, I found the numbers that Mrs. Biggert is talking about. 

Chairman GORDON. Well, the astute Mr. Bartlett has found 

something here, and we are getting our able counsels together to 

get you a good answer. 

Mr. WILSON. Point of order. If that is the case, it sounds to me 

that it is a third-order amendment and therefore should be ruled 

out of order. 

Chairman GORDON. Dr. Bartlett, the bipartisan counsel confab 

here has said that it is in proper order. The bottom line is that the 

gentlelady’s amendment would reduce the appropriations for 

ARPA–E over the five-year period, and as I pointed out earlier, we 

have already reduced the overall budget cuts, but my understanding is that we are moving forward in the proper way. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Will we at any point consider your amendment to 

the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Gordon 

of Tennessee or will we by unanimous consent agree that that is 

now part of the manager’s amendment? 

Chairman GORDON. It is the next vote. We are taking the seconddegree amendments and then the next vote will be on the manager’s amendment. 

Mr. BARTLETT. But when will your amendment in the nature of 

a substitute offered by Mr. Gordon of Tennessee—this is an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. It was in my 

packet, and it is page 16 of that amendment that she refers to in 

her second-degree amendment. 

Chairman GORDON. I am advised by counsel that at the end, all 

54 amendments will be addressed including the amendment in the 

nature of a substitute. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Okay. Thank you. So the amendment really before us is not the manager’s amendment, it is the amendment to 

the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Gordon. Is that correct? That is correct? 

Chairman GORDON. That is correct but it is my understanding 

that those are synonymous terms. 

Mr. BARTLETT. But they are two different pieces of paper. Okay. 

Thank you very much. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
540 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Dr. Bartlett. Is there any further 

discussion? 

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Dr. Baird is recognized. 

Mr. BAIRD. Just very briefly. You know, there has been a lot of 

talk about public spending, and there should be a lot of talk about 

that. I will tell you back home, the folks I represent, when you ask 

them how do you want money spent on energy research, they are 

often going to say, I want it spent on something that is going to 

create American jobs, that is going to lower my cost of energy, that 

is going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and I think that 

is what ARPA–E does. And I am very loathe to do what I am about 

to do but I think it is necessary. 

ARPA–E focuses on those things that I think are going to be 

game-changing research, as do much of the other DOE labs, but if 

you look at the ARPA–E budget relative to the DOE labs like Argonne, for example, Argonne gets a billion dollars a year, a billion. 

Now, they do important research there. I don’t dispute that. But 

it is double or treble what ARPA gets. And we don’t yet know the 

results of ARPA fully but I would submit that if you look at the 

broad spectrum of innovative energy research funded under ARPA 

and you put it to the test of the average person in the general public and say does this make some sense to you, I think it is favorably 

towards Argonne, and I am not going to call for the cutting or reduction of Argonne for a second. I would not do that. But I would 

put that budget, which is several factors higher than the budget for 

ARPA, up for comparison and suggest that before we start cutting 

ARPA, if we are to start cutting ARPA, then we need to start looking at some other things as well, and I am not inclined to do that 

because I think it would be a mistake but I think it is an equally 

egregious mistake to go after ARPA, and I will yield back. 

Chairman GORDON. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Mrs. Biggert. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you. 

You know, I really do support ARPA, I do support the Office of 

Science, and you hit me in the heart with Argonne. But I think 

that all of the labs are very, very important and they serve a purpose that is, what I think probably is larger than what we are 

starting out with with ARPA–E. ARPA–E is for innovation and creativity that comes from the outside but the labs themselves have 

all had very, very expensive projects. Let us take the Advanced 

Photon Source, which has to be upgraded now. These are all things 

that are in progress and I think that ARPA–E is a new program 

and I just thought that when we had put in ARPA–E that it would 

be at a funding level which would not reduce the cost of the Office 

of Science, and that was removed so I just thought we would reduce it, and I did give you wrong numbers because I didn’t think 

that this was the right place for this. But $2.5 billion from $3.15 

billion. Again, I can understand why you wouldn’t want to do that 

and so we have a disagreement. 

Chairman GORDON. Thanks, Mrs. Biggert. You know, I think this 

discussion is a little bit like saying, which of your children is the 

cutest. You know what I mean? All these programs are important. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
541 

There is a synergy as they work together, and I think they will all 

benefit each other. 

Is there further discussion on the amendment? If no, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The 

no’s have it. The amendment is not agreed to. 

Are there further amendments to the manager’s amendment? If 

no, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. 

The seventh amendment is an amendment offered by the 

gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Johnson. Are you ready to proceed with 

your amendment? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 

desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 114, amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice 

Johnson of Texas. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentlelady for five minutes to explain her amendment. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

and Members of the Committee. I want to thank you for your attention and commitment to this legislation. 

It has been an uphill battle in getting equality for women when 

it comes to reaching the higher echelons of scientific achievement. 

As women continue to be underrepresented in most STEM fields, 

we must do more to create opportunities to educate and retain 

them, especially at the university faculty level. A National Academies publication, Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering, provides specific policy directives to help accomplish this goal. 

Based on the National Academies’ recommendation, I have introduced the Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science 

and Engineering Act, which I first introduced in the 110th Congress and now reintroduced in the 111th. I would like to thank 

Representatives Donna Edwards, Suzanne Kosmas, Marcia Fudge, 

Charles Wilson, Alan Grayson and Kathy Dahlkemper, who were 

cosponsors, and I invite the rest of the Full Committee to be cosponsors of Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science 

and Engineering Act. I thank the American Association of University Women, National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education, 

the Society of Women Engineers, the National Science Teachers Association, the American Chemical Society and others for supporting 

this amendment. 

This committee has held many hearings where distinguished experts testified about the combination of factors that leads to the 

failure of women to obtain careers in areas such as computer 

science, physics and engineering. Beyond Bias and Barriers provides clear guidelines to universities, federal agencies, professional 

organizations and to Congress on what actions to take to reduce 

gender bias at the university level. Beyond Bias and Barriers also 

recommended that higher education organizations form an interinstitution monitoring organization, and that scientific and profesVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00547 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
542 

sional societies help set professional and equity standards for the 

activities that they lead, such as awards and conferences. As stated 

in Beyond Bias and Barriers, systemic differences between male 

and female scientific and mathematical aptitude and ability do 

exist. It is clear that they cannot account for women’s underrepresentation in academic science and engineering. I am pleased to 

see that many of these recommendations are reflected in this 

amendment to be offered to America COMPETES. 

First, my amendment creates a workshop for women to enhance 

gender equity in the academic STEM environment. Secondly, it establishes a directive for science agencies to establish policies for extended grant support and interim technical support for researchers 

needing a leave of absence for caregiving responsibilities. Third, it 

requires more thorough data regarding federal grant awards and 

positive incentives for academic institutions that are proactive in 

terms of gender sensitivity and equal opportunities for our female 

scientists. 

Many experts, policymakers, educators and other professionals 

feel that not nearly enough is being done to educate persons of influence on the subtle gender bias that exists. Gender bias is holding women back from achieving at the same level as their counterparts. 

This is a good amendment. I have been called by many college 

presidents to push forward with it, and so I urge my colleagues to 

support this amendment. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. 

I thought I would go over. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. 

I want to thank you for your attention and commitment to this legislation. 

It has been an uphill battle in getting equality for women when it comes to reaching the higher echelons of scientific achievement. 

As women continue to be under-represented in most STEM fields, we must do 

more to create opportunities to educate and retain them, especially at the university 

faculty level. 

A National Academies publication called, ‘‘Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling 

the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering,’’ provides specific policy directives to help accomplish this goal. 

Based on the National Academies’ recommendations, I have introduced the Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering Act, which I 

first introduced in the 110th Congress and re-introduced in the 111th Congress. 

I would like to thank Representatives Donna Edwards, Suzanne Kosrnas, Marcia 

Fudge, Charles Wilson, Alan Grayson and Kathy Dahlkemper who are co-sponsors 

of the Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering Act. 

I thank the American Association of University Women, National Coalition for 

Women and Girls in Education, the Society of Women Engineers, the National 

Science Teachers Association, the American Chemical Society and others for supporting this amendment. 

This committee has held many hearings where distinguished experts testified 

about the combination of factors that leads to the failure of women to attain careers 

in areas such as computer science, physics, and engineering. 

Beyond Bias and Barriers, provided clear guidelines to universities, federal agencies, professional organizations and to Congress on what actions to take to reduce 

gender bias at the university faculty level. 

Beyond Bias and Barriers also recommended that higher education organizations 

form an interinstitution monitoring organization, and that scientific and professional societies help set professional and equity standards for the activities that 

they lead, such as awards and conferences. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
543 

As stated in Beyond Bias and Barriers, ‘‘if systematic differences between male 

and female scientific and mathematical aptitude and ability do exist, it is clear that 

they cannot account for women’s underrepresentation in academic science and engineering.’’ 

I am pleased to see that many of these recommendations are reflected in this 

amendment to be offered to America COMPETES. 

First, my amendment creates a workshop program to enhance gender equity in 

the academic STEM environment; 

Second, it establishes a directive. for science agencies to establish policies for extended grant support and interim technical support for researchers needing a leave 

of absence for care giving responsibilities; 

Third, it requires more thorough data regarding federal research grant awards; 

and positive incentives for academic institutions that are proactive in terms of gender sensitivity and equal opportunities for female scientists. 

Many experts, policymakers, educators, and other professionals feel that not nearly enough is being done to educate persons of influence on the subtle gender bias 

that exists. 

Gender bias is holding women back from achieving at the same level as their 

counterparts. Gender-equity should be something we can all agree on. 

This is a good amendment and I would like to thank Members of this committee 

for their hard work to address this important cause. 

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. It is well documented, as you point out, that women and minorities are underrepresented in STEM fields. You have been a champion in trying to 

rectify that, and this is one more step forward in making our country more competitive. 

Is there further discussion on the amendment? If no, then the 

vote is on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The 

ayes have it and the motion is agreed to. 

The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 

the gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Mrs. Dahlkemper. Are you ready 

to proceed with your amendment? 

Mrs. DAHLKEMPER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at 

the desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment 033, amendment to the amendment in 

the nature of a substitute offered by Mrs. Dahlkemper of Pennsylvania. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentlelady for five minutes to explain her amendment. 

Mrs. DAHLKEMPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 

Ranking Member Hall, for allowing me to offer this critical amendment. I want to thank you also for your leadership regarding this, 

I think, critical bill. I know it holds special importance to you, Mr. 

Chairman, and so it is timely also for our manufacturers, our current and future workforce, our educators and our economy. 

My amendment adds an important component to the National 

Science Foundation’s efforts to enhance and to grow our Nation’s 

manufacturing sector. It directs the Director of the National 

Science Foundation to award grants to strengthen and expand scientific and technical education and training in advanced manufacturing, including through the Foundation’s Advanced Technology 

Education program. We know that manufacturing education is an 

essential component to America’s competitiveness abroad and an 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
544 

absolute necessity in keeping and growing jobs in our community 

and our economy. If we do not take meaningful steps to begin to 

close that gap between the skills and the talents of workers and 

the advanced manufacturing needs of employers, we will continue 

to experience the devastating impact in our communities across the 

Nation as more and more of our economic future is outsourced to 

other countries. 

This amendment ensures the investments in developing a workforce that meets the needs of the next generation of American manufacturing by prioritizing the inclusion of timely and relevant manufacturing education as a part of NSF’S Advanced Technical Education program, which emphasizes development and curriculum 

that will enhance the manufacturing knowledge and training of undergraduates in the scientific and technical fields as well as that 

of the elementary and postsecondary instructors and practitioners. 

Awarding grants in the area of strengthening and expanding 

manufacturing education also serves another important purpose: to 

provide opportunities for employees to maintain the relevant skills 

and training that will allow them to compete as the field of manufacturing grows more complex. Providing workers with the career 

development necessary to keep pace with the growth in their field 

is critical to job stability and job mobility. We want our Nation’s 

scientific and technical workers to have the tools they need to perform successfully both here and abroad. 

Mr. Chairman, ensuring that America is able to compete in a 

rapidly changing global economy starts with making vital investments that guarantee educational and training systems that are robust in resources as well as results. I believe this amendment helps 

us do just that and I urge my colleagues’ support, and I yield back. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mrs. Dahlkemper, for that excellent amendment. Is there further discussion? If no, the vote occurs 

on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes 

have it. The amendment is agreed to. 

Dr. Broun is next. For any of you that have come in later, sort 

of the ground rules that were set were that when your time comes 

up for an amendment, if you are not here, someone can introduce 

it for you, or we will come back and pick you at the end so that 

you can’t just be coming in and everybody else has to grind it out. 

So Dr. Broun is not here but he can come back, and Mr. Inglis is 

here. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment 017, amendment to the amendment in 

the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Inglis of South Carolina. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. INGLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This amendment amends the NSF prize language from Dr. Lipinski to ensure that federal research grant dollars are not used to 

meet the requirements for a prize award. It is essentially an attempt to prevent double dipping and echoes an H-Prize provision 

that prevented federal employees from participating using federal 

dollars to compete for other federal dollars in the form of a prize. 

And I believe that Dr. Lipinski wanted to engage in a colloquy 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
545 

about that, and I am happy to yield to him if this would be an appropriate time. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. If Mr. Inglis would like to yield? 

Mr. INGLIS. I would be happy to yield. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. I appreciate the concern about double dipping, and 

I know this is something on the H-Prize which we worked on together. Really, you had the original author of that and we got that 

done under my authorship but we worked on this issue in there 

and put some language in there to prevent the double dipping. I 

appreciate Mr. Inglis wants to prevent what he sees as double dipping. I have a little bit of a concern on this, and I definitely think 

we should prevent double dipping. I have a little bit of a concern 

that it is a little bit too broad the way that the—if you are talking 

about federal employees, certainly I think that we want to prevent 

what would definitely be seen as double dipping. If you are receiving an NSF grant, though, I am afraid that this might say that 

anyone who has ever received any NSF funding would not be eligible for a prize. 

I think that—I would be happy to accept this amendment if Mr. 

Inglis would agree that we will continue to work on this and maybe 

try to narrow it down a little bit to make sure that we are getting 

exactly what we want to get in this amendment and then we could 

move forward in the manager’s amendment as the bill comes to the 

Floor, if we could work on that language to clarify and narrow this 

amendment. If Mr. Inglis would agree to that, then I would be 

happy to accept the amendment. 

Mr. INGLIS. And reclaiming my time, I am happy to agree to 

that, Dr. Lipinski, and Mr. Chairman, I think it makes sense to figure out—we are both trying to accomplish the same thing. We 

want to see that there is not double dipping, and at the same time 

we don’t want to cut off the creativity of people who may have received NSF grants that are unrelated to the work that they are 

doing related to the prize, so there may be somebody who has an 

NSF grant in his or her time on their own, at night is thinking 

about the solution to a key issue that confronts us and unrelated 

to their funding from their NSF grant may provide the breakthrough, so we surely want to reward that kind of after-hours effort. We just don’t want there to be double dipping because it 

would violate the spirit of the prize. 

And I would be happy to yield further to Dr. Lipinski. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. I think this is going to take a little bit more discussion about what exactly—it is very difficult, in the scientific endeavor, to separate out one piece of work from another piece of 

work that someone engages in, so I think that as we discuss this 

and consult also with others on this as we have begun to do here, 

I am sure that we can work this out, and I appreciate Mr. Inglis’s 

desire to make sure that we are saving money. No taxpayer wants 

to see anyone as a double dipper. We are trying to save money here 

and cut the deficit. So I appreciate Mr. Inglis’s work on this. 

Mr. INGLIS. So it sounds like I have an acceptable amendment, 

Mr. Chairman, which is an exciting thing. 

Chairman GORDON. Well, Mr. Inglis, you have demonstrated— 

you and Dr. Lipinski have demonstrated an effort to work colleVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00551 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
546 

gially and productively on this issue, and I am sure you will continue with that. 

So if there is no further discussion, the vote occurs on the 

amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it 

and the amendment is agreed to. 

The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 

the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall. Are you ready to proceed with 

your amendment? 

Mr. HALL. I am. I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 012, amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Hall of Texas. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, the Academic Research Facilities Modernization Program was a bricks and mortar for university programs at the National Science Foundation. It was first authorized 

in 1988. It was essentially dormant from the early 1990s until the 

Administration revised it in the American Recovery Act. I simply 

don’t believe it is the Federal Government’s role or responsibility 

to construct or renovate university science labs and buildings. 

Funding bricks-and-mortar projects takes much-needed research 

dollars away from actually performing research. The NSF already 

funds major research facilities with multiple users as well as major 

research instrumentation. I believe these provide valuable assets 

for our Nation but a program such as ARI [Academic Research Infrastructure Program] that allows schools to apply for grants to improve their facilities is ripe for potential future earmarks. I believe, 

Mr. Chairman, that you share my belief that NSF remain an earmark-free entity. I move the passage of this amendment. 

Chairman GORDON. The gentleman—thank you. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, while the amendment doesn’t affect 

the current solicitation for projects under the American Recovery 

Act, it does repeal this program in fiscal year 2011. That is the 

only difference. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Hall. The Chair recognizes 

himself. 

I am torn on this, Mr. Hall, in that conceptually I agree with 

you. This has been a program that has been authorized since 1993. 

It has not been funded for the reasons that you spoke eloquently 

about. However, I think it does make that sense that for those 

anomalies, and we saw that anomaly with this recent tremendous 

recession, that there might be occasions where it could be beneficial. So I think it is beneficial to keep it in the toolbox but that 

it is something that should not be used as earmarking and taking 

funds away from the National Science Foundation. And for that 

reason, I modestly and reluctantly oppose your amendment. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Dr. Lipinski. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I know that the gentleman from Texas has the best interests of 

taxpayers at heart, as he always makes sure that he does as the 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
547 

Ranking Member here. I, a little bit more strongly, oppose this 

amendment. I think that the—if you go back in the history of this, 

you see—I know Mr. Hall is concerned about earmarking. One of 

the reasons this was put in was that we saw that there was earmarking that was going on by Congress and thought that—Congress believed that this was the way to make sure that you have 

independent—have the NSF deciding where the funding is going to 

go. 

My concern is that we are—we have $3.5 billion in needed renovations, according to the 2005 survey of science and engineering 

research facilities. We have only seen an increase in that need with 

the recession, and the concerns are twofold. One is that if we do 

not have these state-of-the-art lab spaces, networks, instruments, 

computing facilities, that we will not be spending the funding that 

we are giving in regards to grants for research. We will not be 

spending that as efficiently because we do not have the facilities 

that are needed to do the best research. 

The other concern I have is, I have certainly heard conducting 

hearings, a hearing on this, and listening sessions I held with universities, other institutions, said that there is great concern that 

we are losing researchers to countries, especially such as China 

that are investing significantly in their facilities and that we are 

training—we are the best at training scientists and engineers here 

in this country, but more and more we are losing these researchers 

to other countries that are offering better facilities, and I think 

that is another concern that I have. We are not—we have not appropriated funding. Congress has not appropriated funding for this 

in recent years except for the Recovery Act. I think it is important 

that we keep this in there, especially as we await the next report 

on what kind of deferred maintenance is going on, especially, as I 

said, I think it will be even worse now with the recession especially 

hitting the state institutions and state universities. 

So I appreciate the concern that Mr. Hall has but I definitely 

have to oppose this amendment. I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lipinski follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE DANIEL LIPINSKI

Thank you Chairman Gordon for all of your leadership and work on this bill. Like 

the original COMPETES Act, this reauthorization takes important steps toward laying the foundation for the future competitiveness of our country through vital and 

targeted investments in education, research, energy, and manufacturing. 

My amendment would create jobs and support American manufacturers by improving procurement at our National Labs and accelerators. It requires the Director 

of the DOE Office of Science to develop a plan for increasing purchases from domestic sources, especially purchases of hardware and instrumentation that we do not 

currently manufacture. 

The primary target of this amendment is not so-called ‘‘Commercial-Off-TheShelf,’’ or COTS hardware, but rather custom manufactured components that are 

used to build accelerators and other large scientific instruments. By fostering closer 

collaboration between Office of Science facilities and the small manufacturers who 

could fabricate these specialized parts, this amendment will result in faster, more 

efficient procurements and products that better meet the precise scientific needs of 

our Labs. 

This amendment supports high-skill, high-wage engineering, machining, assembly, and testing jobs at small companies throughout the country. These are manufacturing jobs that support innovation not only at our National Labs, but also in 

the petrochemical, semiconductor, and biotechnology sectors. We need these jobs and 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
548 

the ability to manufacture cutting-edge equipment, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. 

Remarks opposing the Hall amendment to strike the Academic Research Facilities 

Act. Note that remarks as delivered differ significantly from text below. 

While I know that the gentleman from Texas has the best interests of taxpayers 

at heart, 1 oppose his amendment. I do not see the benefit in striking the Academic 

Research Facilities Modernization Act generally, and think that now is certainly the 

wrong time to do it. 

The COMPETES Act aims to strengthen our national economic competitiveness 

by investing in basic research, STEM education and innovation. But STEM education and cutting-edge R&D needs state-of-the-art lab space, networks, instruments, and computing facilities, and in these areas we are falling behind our competitors. While countries like China are investing in all aspects of their R&D ecosystems, the recession has stopped US research universities—especially public 

ones—from upgrading or even maintaining their research infrastructure. 

This means we are spending our Federal research dollars inefficiently, supporting 

scientists handicapped by outdated instruments and laboratories. It also means that 

we will find it harder and harder to attract top scientists and engineers and to remain the worldwide leader in basic research. 

The 2005 Survey of Science and Engineering Research facilities found that academic institutions were deferring $3.5 billion in needed renovations. As I have visited with academic leaders around the country, I’ve heard them all say the same 

thing—it’s gotten worse since 2005. Now is not the time to remove this tool from 

the NSF’s toolbox. 

Adopting this amendment would not necessarily save any money either. The ARI 

program has not issued a grant since 1996. Yes, the NSF is expected to give out 

Recovery Act grants over the next two months, but that’s just another reason not 

to adopt this amendment. It would be prudent to wait and see how well these grants 

work before repealing the language that made them possible. 

Leaving the Academic Research Facilities Act on the books gives Congress and the 

NSF another tool for unexpected situations or emergencies. This language has done 

no harm for over a decade, and I see no reason to repeal it now, just before the 

new grants take effect and when we know the level of University funds for repair 

and renovation of scientific facilities is at an all time low. 

I urge my colleagues to vote NO on the amendment. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Hall is recognized. 

Mr. HALL. My colleagues are concerned about this. I understand 

the problem. I would have no problem working with you, Mr. 

Chairman, to ensure that we are explicit about this. However, I 

feel pretty strongly that no future funding ought to go to this program. It could probably still be subject to earmarks if earmarks are 

still in vogue by the time somebody wants to avail them. But I encourage adoption of the amendment. I yield back my time. 

Chairman GORDON. If there is no further discussion on the— 

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Oh, Dr. Bartlett. 

Mr. BARTLETT. I agree that we may need to put more money into 

facilities because you can’t have people working where they don’t 

have facilities to work in but I think this is a wrong mission for 

the National Science Foundation. This is not what they do. They 

would have to hire a bunch of whole new people to do this, and if 

the Federal Government is going to support this, I just think it 

would be better supported somewhere else rather than the National Science Foundation because I don’t think that they are traditionally tooled up to do this, and I am not sure they would do a 

very good job of it. 

So I want to support the potential need for federal money to go 

here, but I am going to support Mr. Hall’s motion because I don’t 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
549 

think that the National Science Foundation is the right place to do 

this. Thank you. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Dr. Lipinski is recognized. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. I just want to quickly add, the reason 

why this was put in the NSF is to avoid the earmarking, so that 

it would be merit reviewed as everything is in the NSF. They do 

have the infrastructure in the NSF to be able to do these reviews, 

and I think that is the appropriate place to do it to make sure, to 

be best assured that the money is going to the correct places. I 

yield back. 

Chairman GORDON. If there is— 

Mr. BARTLETT. I am not sure how you peer review building a 

building. I don’t know how you would do that, which is why I think 

the National Science Foundation is the wrong place for this. 

Thanks. 

Chairman GORDON. If there is no further discussion, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The 

no’s have it and the amendment is not agreed to. 

The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 

the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Neugebauer. Are you ready to proceed with your amendment? 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Actually I am, Mr. Chairman, and I ask unanimous consent that I am going to withdraw amendment number 

008 and number 013 and ask to proceed with amendment number 

026. 

Chairman GORDON. Without objection, so ordered. Let us see. 

Now the clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment 026, amendment to the amendment in 

the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Neugebauer. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope it didn’t offend you that I withdrew those other— 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Neugebauer, let me—I ask unanimous 

consent to dispense with the reading. Without objection, so ordered, 

and I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his 

amendment. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope it didn’t offend you that I withdrew those other two. 

You know, Mr. Chairman and I had a fairly robust debate about 

the match, and I have conceded that point, but what this amendment does is that it says that current law allows them to participate in in-kind. If we are going to move the match from 70 to 30, 

I am offering an amendment that seeks to make sure that the 

schools actually put up hard money. So my amendment does not 

restrict them from providing in-kind services, merely that they cannot be counted towards their 30 percent match. 

As we often hear, the Federal Government continues to overpromise and too many underdeliver. This is an opportunity to set 

pragmatic goals and more realistic levels of funding. My amendment strives to maintain appropriate levels of responsible burden 

sharing, requiring participating schools to have skin in the game, 

which is a laudable goal. There is no one at this dais that doesn’t 

see these towns and states and universities scaling back, yet time 

and time again up here in Washington we fail to do the same. I 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
550 

think it is time, as we have heard many of my colleagues say, restore fiscal balance and we continue to provide appropriate resources that can provide the continued lead in these leading areas. 

So basically, Mr. Chairman, this is pretty straightforward. This 

says if we are going to change the match from 70 to 30, that universities would have to put up matching funds and not in-kind. It 

doesn’t keep them from doing the in-kind but does make sure that 

they are putting their money up with it. So with that, I would urge 

adoption. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Neugebauer. The chairman 

recognizes himself for five minutes. 

As you said, we had a discussion on the other issues. This is a 

novel one, and I am sympathetic to your concern that it is not 

gained with a lot of in-kind. My concern, though, is whether NSF 

needs some flexibility there, and I have not had a chance to discuss 

it with them. Where I am today, just as a friend, I would have to 

oppose it because I don’t know enough about it but I would still revisit it and see if there is a way to give some flexibility yet ratchet 

that down. We can either do one of two ways. You can withdraw 

and we will look at it some more. We will likely vote it down but 

that doesn’t mean that we are through discussing it because I 

think you are on the right track. I am just not sure what the unintended consequences are because we haven’t had a chance to look 

at it more. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Well, I think there is pretty—I think the 

standards are there, what is in-kind and isn’t in-kind. 

Chairman GORDON. Whether they need two or three percent, you 

know, whether there is something that— 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. But I think what happens is, as you know, 

and you used the correct term, people that get grants have learned 

to game the system in many cases, and if we are going to increase 

the federal participation to a very generous level, as you know, and 

I am conceding the point that I, you know, disagree with, but I 

think if we are going to concede that the Federal Government is 

going to put in 70 percent and those are going to be hardballers, 

I do not think it is unrealistic or unfair to ask those universities 

to at least come up with 30 percent of their hard money. Many 

times they are going to use in-kind to perpetrate the program and 

in many cases some of their hard dollars actually comes from third 

parties. My piece of legislation doesn’t, you know, keep that hard 

money coming from third parties but what I do think they need to 

do is to, you know, have skin in the game and I think 30 percent 

of hard money is realistic. Again, it doesn’t preclude them from 

using other things to, you know, foster the program. If they find 

that program beneficial, they can use those in-kind things. Because 

we had a little disagreement on the math but when you go to the 

70 percent, you know, you are going to shrink the numbers of programs that are out there because you are going to put more dollars 

in where you were spreading those dollars out. So I would ask the 

Chairman to reconsider. If it is voted down, I would hope that he 

would be true to his commitment to, if we can’t work this out 

today, to work on it moving forward. 

Chairman GORDON. I thank my friend, and I reclaim my time. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
551 

First, we need to make clear whether you have got a 70 percent 

match or a 50 percent match or whatever it is, it is the same 

amount of federal dollars so that doesn’t vary. What I would like 

to do is give—when I say the benefit of the doubt, I would like to 

go ahead and accept this amendment today but I don’t want to mislead you. I want to learn more about it. We may have to deal with 

it again in the manager’s amendment or some way if NSF convinces us that there is some legitimate reason to have some, you 

know, nominal amount there. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I concur with that and would look forward to 

their response, and after we have seen their response you and I 

having a dialog about that. 

Chairman GORDON. If there further discussion on the amendment? If no, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor of the 

amendment, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it and the 

amendment is agreed to. 

The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 

the gentleman from Michigan, Dr. Ehlers. Are you ready to proceed 

with your amendment? 

Mr. EHLERS. Yes. I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment 039, amendment to the amendment in 

the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Ehlers of Michigan. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. EHLERS. Well, this shouldn’t take five minutes. This is very 

straightforward. It simply recognizes a change that has occurred in 

undergraduate education, particularly in the life sciences. New programs are being developed across the country, and in fact a few of 

my neighboring colleges have already put these programs into 

place dealing with sustainability. There is an increased need for 

that, whether one is an architect or a scientist or life scientist. 

More and more of these programs are needed because students are 

getting jobs in those areas and this is just an attempt to upgrade 

and keep up with the changing times to recognize that sustainability programs should be added to the list of approved activities 

that grants and transforming undergraduate education and STEM 

program. So it will simply add that one area of sustainability to the 

existing grant programs that will be allowed under this legislation. 

I urge adoption of the amendment. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers, for your good amendment. Is there further discussion on your amendment? If no, the 

vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. 

The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to, and we are 

fourth of the way through. 

The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 

the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Wilson. Are you ready to proceed 

with your amendment? 

Mr. WILSON. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at 

the desk. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
552 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The amendment I am proposing today builds on the excellent 

work done by Congresswoman Fudge during a Subcommittee markup. Her addition of the ‘‘Grand Challenges in Education Research’’ 

section is crucial. I believe it will greatly improve research on preK through 12 STEM education. 

My amendment is simple. I ask that the National Science Foundation and the Department of Education work together to identify 

the research challenges in STEM education. They also specifically 

evaluate the barriers being faced by students in rural schools. 

I represent a very rural part of Ohio, and too many of our rural 

students are struggling to receive an adequate STEM education. 

Sadly, many of our rural schools lack the resources needed to provide the STEM education necessary for funding for students entering the 21st century workforce. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to 

support my amendment that would have the Department of Education and the National Science Foundation specifically consider 

students in rural schools as they work to resolve the current challenge facing pre-K through 12 STEM education. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES A. WILSON

The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010—Full Committee Markup 

April 28, 2010 Wilson Amendment Colleagues, the amendment I am proposing today 

builds on the excellent work done by Congresswoman Fudge during a subcommittee 

markup. Her addition of the ‘‘Grand Challenges in Education Research’’ section is 

crucial. I believe it will greatly improve research on preK–12 STEM education. 

My amendment is simple. It asks that as the National Science Foundation and 

Department of Education work together to identify and research the challenges in 

STEM education, they also specifically evaluate the barriers being faced by students 

in rural schools. 

I represent a very rural part of Ohio. Too many of our rural students are struggling to receive an adequate STEM education. Sadly, many of our rural schools lack 

the resources needed to provide the STEM education necessary for students entering 

the 21 at Century workforce. 

Therefore, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment that would have the Department of Education and National Science Foundation specifically consider students in rural schools as they work to resolve the current challenges facing preK– 

12 STEM education. 

Mr. HALL. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. WILSON. Certainly. 

Mr. HALL. I think it is a good amendment. We support it. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you. 

Is there further discussion? If there is no further discussion on 

the amendment, all in favor of the amendment say aye. Opposed, 

no. The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. 

The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 

the gentleman from Maryland, Dr. Bartlett. Are you ready to proceed with your amendment? 

Mr. BARTLETT. Yes, sir. I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 011, amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Bartlett of Maryland. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
553 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment 

which supports your commitment to exclude projects from this reauthorization that went unfunded in the original COMPETES bill. 

This program was not only unfunded up to now, but my understanding is that the National Science Foundation says they have 

no intent to fund it now, so my question is, why include it? To 

make the bill relevant, I just would ask that we delete this. If we 

think that they are in error for doing this, then we need to talk 

about that before the bill comes to the Floor. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Dr. Bartlett. 

And Ms. Fudge is recognized. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to voice my support for the Partnerships for Access to Laboratory Science pilot program. It is becoming 

more and more apparent how important these hands-on learning 

activities are for students. It is also no secret that high-need 

schools for the most part have insufficient tools to meet curricular 

demands. 

In 2002, almost 60 percent of teachers in Washington, D.C., and 

in Chicago, Illinois, reported that the science labs in their schools 

were somewhat or very inadequate to meet curricular standards or 

that the had no science labs at all. Access to laboratory equipment 

is essential in recruiting and retaining students in STEM fields. 

According to a report from the U.S. General Accounting Office in 

2005, researchers found that approximately 40 percent of those college students who left the science fields reported some problem related to high school science preparation. Dr. Ehlers and I have introduced a resolution supporting the ideals of National Lab Day, an 

initiative that calls for businesses and professional volunteers to 

partner with schools to give students exposure to the STEM fields 

and hands-on experiences with STEM activities. 

I know that my colleagues across the aisle believe in the importance of lab experiences, which is why I don’t understand why they 

do not want to authorize the PALS [Partnerships for Access to Laboratory Science] program. Please oppose this amendment, and I 

thank you and I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Fudge follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE MARCIA L. FUDGE

Mr. Chairman, I would like to voice my support for the Partnerships for Access 

to Laboratory Science pilot program. It is becoming more and more apparent how 

important these hands-on learning activities are for students. It is also no secret 

that high-needs schools, for the most part, have insufficient tools to meet curricula 

demands. In 2002, almost 60% of teachers in Washington, DC and Chicago, IL, reported that the science labs in their school were somewhat or very inadequate to 

meet curricula standards, or that they had no science labs at all. Access to laboratory equipment is essential in recruiting and retaining students in STEM fields. According to a report from the U.S. General Accounting Office in 2005, researchers 

found that approximately 40 percent of those college students who left the science 

fields reported some problems related to high school science preparation. 

Dr. Ehlers and I have introduced a resolution supporting the ideals (A National 

Lab Day, an initiative that calls for businesses and professional volunteers-to partner with schools to give students exposure to the STEM fields and hands-on experiVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00559 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
554 

ences with STEM activities. I know that my colleagues across the aisle believe in 

the importance of lab experiences, which is why I don’t understand why they do not 

want to authorize the PALS program. 

Please oppose this amendment. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JERRY F. COSTELLO

Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s mark-up of H.R. 

5116, the Reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act of 2010. 

In the three years since the America COMPETES Act was signed into law, we 

have made great strides in innovation, education, and technology. I applaud the 

work of Chairman Gordon in drafting this reauthorization bill to invest in research, 

development, and innovation across the federal government and to maintain and encourage a highly-skilled, competitive workforce for generations to come. 

As a member of the Congressional Manufacturing Caucus, I am especially pleased 

to see the targeted investments H.R. 5116 will make in the manufacturing sector 

to support innovation. The National Science Foundation (NSF) manufacturing research grant program created by this bill will develop new technologies and processes to make our manufacturing sector more efficient and productive in the future. 

Further, the bill provides new opportunities for small and medium sized manufacturers; the innovative services initiative at the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Centers, which will reduce energy use and accelerate commercialization 

of new products, and the newly-created Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 

which provides loan guarantees and regional hubs to ensure these smaller manufacturers can expand and improve their operations. These new programs will keep our 

manufacturers and our workforce competitive. 

In addition, I recognize the important science, technology, engineering, and math 

(STEM) education programs included in H.R. 5116 to support undergraduate, graduate, and post-doctoral research and training, especially at the Department of Energy (DOE). This bill will ensure that DOE’s STEM education programs mirror the 

important research being conducted by the agency on a wide variety of energy 

sciences. 

In particular, I am pleased clarifying language in the manager’s amendment will 

specifically include carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) science as an eligible 

STEM education program within DOE. CCS represents the future of coal-powered 

energy, the nation’s most abundant and affordable energy source. The President’s 

Fiscal Year 2011 budget invests over $400 million in CCS research at DOE, and 

universities such as the Southern Illinois University-Carbondale engage in cuttingedge clean coal research. Including CCS in DOE’s STEM education programming 

will ensure we continue to expand research, development, and deployment of this 

important technology and train a new generation of CCS scientists. 

Finally, since coming to Congress, I have been a strong supporter of STEM education at every age from pre-school through adult education. I believe we must invest at every level to ensure we prepare the next generation of scientists and engineers and maintain the most innovative, competitive workforce in the world. As a 

member of the House Community Colleges Caucus, I am especially pleased to see 

that H.R. 5116 supports STEM education programs at community colleges and 

2year institutions. This legislation links community colleges with MEPs, other institutions of higher education, research institutions, and regional innovation hubs to 

ensure that students, workers, and researchers benefit from the unique perspective 

of community colleges. 

However, investment in STEM education is especially important at the K–12 

level, when students are first exposed to STEM curricula. The federal government 

should develop new ways to engage K–12 students in STEM and retain their interest through post-secondary education and in the workforce. Yet the K–12 STEM 

education initiatives authorized under COMPETES in 2007 have been removed from 

H.R. 5116. It is my hope that teacher retraining and K–12 STEM education provisions will be reauthorized, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to 

achieve this goal. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Luja ́n is recognized. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and just to 

emphasize my support as well with the PALS program, Mr. Chairman. We also have the National Research Council, who looked at 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
555 

this issue across the country back in 2005 as well, a study which 

looked at the role laboratory learning can have for the country’s 

high school students and the current situation of laboratory learning, and we continue to see how there is problem after problem 

with the lack of access, Mr. Chairman. The NRC [National Research Council] report found that laboratory science programs in 

high school classrooms are in disarray and certain factors seriously 

hamper efforts to improve them. In particular, the National Academies’ report that was highlighted earlier as well found that the 

vast majority of laboratory science programs in high school classrooms are also in disarray, so this is consistent information of two 

different groups that have looked at this, Mr. Chairman, and while 

this program hasn’t received funding within the last three years, 

there is still a great need to further examine the role that laboratory experiences can play in improving STEM education at the high 

school level, and especially all the emphasis that we have in STEM 

[science, technology, engineering, and mathematics], Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that we should be looking at supporting programs and expanding them as opposed to pulling away at a time 

when students are at the most need around the country. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Luja ́n. 

Dr. Bartlett. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, keeping this in the bill when the 

National Science Foundation says they are not going to fund it does 

not meet the objectives of these two speakers. If in fact we think 

that they are in error and they ought to fund it, then we need to 

amend the bill so that we require them to fund it. Just keeping it 

in there, you know, doesn’t do anything if their intent is not to 

fund it. So I will withdraw my amendment and ask that we work 

together between now and when it comes to the Floor to determine 

whether or not this committee thinks that they are in error and 

that they should support this. We need to come to one of two conclusions: either they are wrong and we are going to require them 

to support it or they are right in not supporting and therefore are 

going to remove the language from the bill. 

Chairman GORDON. As usual, Dr. Bartlett is very logical, and so 

this conversation will continue and the amendment is withdrawn. 

And we will then move to the next amendment on the roster, which 

is offered by the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Wu. Are you ready 

to proceed with your amendment? 

Mr. WU. I am, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment 041, amendment to the amendment in 

the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Wu of Oregon. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. WU. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

My amendment improves American students’ competitiveness in 

this very difficult job market through expanded internship opportunities for undergraduate students and potentially high school students in the private sector—for internships with private sector 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
556 

STEM employers. Internships have a strong track record of preparing students for careers, and they are a particularly valuable 

tool for students in STEM fields. 

According to the National Association of College and Employers, 

companies extended job offers to 70 percent of their interns in 

2008. One reason why college graduates with internship experience 

are so much more competitive in the job market is that there is a 

significant skills gap between what is needed to complete an undergraduate degree in a STEM field and the skills needed for success 

in a STEM career. Even in the current economic climate, many 

high-tech companies report that they are unable to fill open positions because the college graduates applying for them lack the 

skills needed for success. 

My amendment today will help bridge the knowledge gap that 

prevents some STEM graduates from getting jobs in the science 

and technology workforce by creating internship opportunities that 

can be integrated with students’ STEM coursework. The amendment expands upon grant opportunities at the National Science 

Foundation for universities and stakeholder consortia to establish 

or expand partnerships with local or regional private sector organizations for the purpose of providing undergraduate students with 

integrated internship experiences. 

My amendment also provides incentives to encourage universities 

and stakeholder consortia to coordinate with local and regional private sector entities in developing academic courses so that students 

will have the skills necessary for employment in companies in their 

community and in their region. It does so by helping universities 

and their partners identify areas where students need more instruction prior to graduation and providing specific coursework 

that prepares students for jobs in their respective fields immediately upon graduation. 

In addition, my amendment requires NSF to report to Congress 

on its implementation of these grants, including their effect on 

workforce preparation and job placement for participating students. 

Mr. Chairman, we focused on this amendment. I developed this 

amendment in part because of the job needs, the employment needs 

of Americans today in this very, very difficult environment, but 

also specifically because I have visited several employers in Oregon 

which are sponsoring internships which are doing a great job of 

training young people both high school students and college students for future employment in STEM fields, and these employers 

are seeking some additional assistance and encouragement in order 

to expand the programs they already have and to encourage fellow 

employers to develop such programs. And I believe that this is an 

important source of future STEM employees and part of the solution for the unemployment problems that we have, and I believe 

that we have a strong responsibility to address the Nation’s rising— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Would the gentleman— 

Mr. WU. —need for STEM professionals— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —yield for a question. 

Mr. WU. —and I urge the Committee’s support, and I would be 

happy to yield to the gentleman. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
557 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. How would this actually encourage more internships? 

Mr. WU. The employers that I have spoken with say that they 

need some material support and also some support for program and 

curricula so that they can expand the program that they have already have, or the programs that they already have, and also encourage fellow employers to ramp up such programs with lower development costs, and charging the NSF or expanding on NSF activities where they are currently doing some of these activities 

would support, in essence, some of the overhead costs that these 

programs currently bear. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Would this actually provide funds for companies that are then engaged, or companies who are actually government entities that are providing more of these intern opportunities? 

Mr. WU. The funding is for the National Science Foundation and 

for the consortia. There is the potential for funding—for transferring some of the funding to the companies with internships. However, I believe that minority counsel raised an issue with direct 

funding of stipends, and that is to be resolved. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But that is not in the current—your amendment that— 

Mr. WU. I do not believe so. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Wu, for your good jobs 

amendment and now if there is no further discussion— 

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Oh, Dr. Baird. 

Mr. BAIRD. I just want to very briefly but effusively praise my 

colleague. In my discipline in the social sciences, internships are an 

absolutely essential part of our training, and modestly, I just completed the 6th edition of my textbook on internships, but we tend 

to do that in the social sciences. We tend not to do it in some of 

the STEM fields, and I think he is right on the money about the 

educational value of this and I urge passage of this. 

Chairman GORDON. If there is no further discussion— 

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. —Mr. Bartlett has a second-degree amendment. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment 023, amendment offered by Bartlett of 

Maryland to the amendment offered by Mr. Wu of Oregon. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, I am a huge fan of internships. 

They are in effect willing slave labor. They work so hard and do 

much, and so I want to encourage that. 

I have a second-degree amendment which I think that Mr. Wu 

has accepted. I am very pleased at that. But I will tell you that I 

am not happy where we are at the present moment so I hope that 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
558 

we will work together between now and when the bill comes to the 

Floor. 

You know, I am reluctant to exclude funding for internships at 

businesses. I am very concerned that a huge percentage of all the 

research support in this country comes from the Federal Government. The Federal Government can be very arbitrary and capricious, and my wish would be for us to take less money from the 

private sector so they had more money to invest in basic research, 

and my hope is that there will be some basic research going on in 

companies where—I would hope that there might be a company 

which is doing better basic research than anybody supported with 

government funds, so that is where we would want to send an intern. So I would like to look at language in the final bill that does 

not completely write off internships for businesses. 

This amendment I think is a very simple amendment that addresses some of the problems that we have. By the way, if you are 

going to deny funding to any private sector partner, does that 

mean that the only universities that will get money are those run 

by government? I don’t think that was our intent. So I would like 

to work together to refine the language of this bill before it comes 

to the Floor. 

Mr. WU. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. BARTLETT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WU. I welcome the gentleman’s amendment. I think it moves 

us in the right direction. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you, sir. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. If there is no further discussion on the 

amendment, Mr. Bartlett’s amendment, the vote occurs on the 

amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. 

Now the vote occurs on Mr. Wu’s amendment. All in favor, say 

aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it and the amendment is 

agreed upon. 

The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 

the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Luja ́n. Are you ready to proceed with your amendment? 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at 

the desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment 049, amendment to the amendment in 

the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Luja ́n of New Mexico. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Hall, and thank you for your hard work on this bill. I would also 

like to thank the Chairman for including language in this bill that 

requires the Director of the National Science Foundation to develop 

a plan for clarifying the objectives and rationale behind the proposal to consolidate NSF’s minority-serving institution programs, 

including the Hispanic-serving institution undergraduate program 

required by section 7033 of the America COMPETES Act of 2007. 

While I have serious concerns about this proposal, I am encouraged 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
559 

by NSF’s willingness to address these concerns over the next several months. 

My amendment today codifies the Tribal Colleges and University 

Program, otherwise known as TCUP, at the National Science Foundation. This program awards grants to tribal colleges and universities to enhance the qualify of undergraduate science, technology, 

engineering and mathematics and to increase the retention and 

graduation rates of Native American students pursuing degrees in 

STEM fields. These grants will support activities to improve 

courses and curriculum as well as faculty development. New Mexico alone is home to over 22 different tribes, 17 of which are located 

in my district, including three tribal colleges and universities. 

These educational institutions are designed to support the unique 

learning needs of our Native American students who continue to be 

underrepresented in STEM fields. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this amendment 

and thank my colleagues for their time today. We must invest in 

comprehensive, collaborative approaches to strengthen STEM 

teaching and learning in ways that improve access to retention 

within, and graduation from STEM programs is imperative and 

that we prepare our students for the jobs of the future. Unfortunately, there has been a divide for too long that has kept minority 

students out of these fields. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your time today and again 

urge adoption. Yield back my time. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Luja ́n, for this good amendment. It is consistent with the testimony that this committee has 

received and recommendations that have been sent to this committee. 

Is there further discussion? If no, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, say no. The ayes have it and 

the amendment is agreed to. 

The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 

the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Diaz-Balart. Are you ready to proceed with your amendment? 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, this is the amendment that I 

had spoken about. We can withdraw now. I ask for unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you very much. 

Now the next amendment on the roster is offered by the gentleman from Texas, Mr. McCaul. Are you ready to proceed with 

your amendment? 

Mr. MCCAUL. I am, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the 

desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment 034, amendment to the amendment in 

the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. McCaul of Texas. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As you know, this amendment passes a bill earlier unanimously 

by this committee and passed the House floor. The Green Energy 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
560 

Education Act will help train the next generation of architects and 

engineers in our universities to build greater energy-efficient buildings, and I urge support for this once again, and I also want to 

thank the Chairman for the idea of bringing this up once again 

under the COMPETES Act as another vehicle to hopefully pass 

this important legislation, and with that, I yield back. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. McCaul. As they say, try, 

try, try again. This is an excellent amendment, and I am glad that 

there was a vehicle for it. I feel confident that this will finally be 

implemented and it will be good public policy and something that 

will be a small part of your bigger legacy. 

If there further discussion on the amendment? If no, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The 

ayes have it and the amendment passes. 

The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 

the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall. Are you ready to proceed with 

your amendment? 

Mr. HALL. I am. I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment 278, amendment to the amendment in 

the nature of a substitute to H.R. 5116 offered by Mr. Hall of 

Texas. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply modifies the 

mission of the Engineering Laboratory at the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology. We had reached an agreement on mission language for this lab prior to the filing of the manager’s 

amendment. I don’t want to start the chain. Roscoe is not here but 

I don’t want to start the chain again on the manager’s amendment, 

but somehow it wasn’t incorporated with all the moving parts of 

the markup process. 

This amendment is the simplest way to handle this oversight, I 

think, and I understand it will probably be accepted, and as always, we are willing to work with you on any clarifying language 

necessary in the manager’s amendment. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Hall, thank you for this good amendment. Sorry that it was not incorporated but it just gives you an 

opportunity to once again talk about what good merits it has. 

Is there any further discussion on the amendment? If no, then 

all those in favor of the amendment say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes 

have it and the amendment is agreed to. 

The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 

the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Broun. Are you ready to proceed 

with your amendment? 

Mr. BROUN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the 

desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 279, amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 5116 offered by Mr. 

Broun of Georgia. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
561 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The amendment would help our Committee eliminate redundancy and help reduce the cost of new programs that the Title V, 

Innovation, creates by striking the entire title altogether from this 

COMPETES reauthorization. The federal loan guarantees Title V 

creates are similar to those that other agencies such as the Small 

Business Administration [SBA] and U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA]offer to small businesses including manufacturing 

businesses. Creating a new program at the Department of Commerce to back the same kind of loans would simply shift the loan 

guarantee funding burdens away from SBA and USDA to the Department of Commerce. 

Why would our Committee want to duplicate what other agencies 

are already administering? These loan guarantee programs are 

highly complex and require significant administrative effort to 

properly manage them. The effect would be to reduce resources 

available for the Department of Commerce to engage in its constitutional activities such as NIST developing the Nation’s standards of weights and measures. 

The Regional Innovation Clusters Program also presents problems which call for their elimination. The main goal of this program is not on research and development but to facilitate market 

development of products and services, which sounds to me like 

marketing and advertising. Certainly these are goals that our Committee should not support. 

Also, as in the case with the loan guarantee program, the language is so broad that one could interpret that our Committee is 

authorizing funding for anything that the Department of Commerce wants. The definition of ‘‘regional innovation cluster’’ makes 

no mention of technology development. Rather, it is a group of entities within a ‘‘particular industry sector’’ that ‘‘have active channels 

for business transactions and communication’’ and ‘‘share specialized infrastructure, labor, markets and services.’’ Under this definition, Commerce could support a cluster for anything from textile 

manufacturing to honeybee farming—you name it. Technically, 

based on this current definition, I don’t see how any industry sector 

would be excluded from the program’s eligibility. 

Finally, codifying the Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship 

in section 501 of Title V is simply not necessary. The office already 

exists. Additionally, the bill language directs the office to ‘‘advocate 

policies.’’ It is directing the Department of Commerce to ‘‘advocate’’ 

an appropriate executive branch activity. Is it? It seems to be. At 

a time when we are experiencing over trillion dollar deficits, it just 

makes sense to hold off on starting new programs which are duplicative to existing programs and that will cost $250 million over five 

years for the loan guarantee program and such mercurial, such 

sums, as it is stated in the bill, amount for the clusters program. 

I urge the Committee to support this amendment that eliminates 

the Title V, Innovation, so that we can help our country get back 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
562 

on a more solid financial ground. Our children and our grandchildren depend upon it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Dr. Broun, and again, I respect 

your sincerity and your consistency here, although it is a very 

broad amendment, striking the entire Title V, which I think has a 

number of good programs. I want to answer one thing that you did 

bring up is, in the Department of Commerce, they have already established this Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship. The reason that we are authorizing it is so we can have authority for oversight. We wouldn’t have authority otherwise. So I think that way 

you can keep an eye on them. Is there further discussion— 

Mr. BROUN. Will the Chairman yield? 

Chairman GORDON. Yes. 

Mr. BROUN. If this amendment does not succeed, which I expect 

it won’t, just bearing the nature of what the amendment is all 

about, but could we—of course, I hope it does succeed because I 

think it makes sense. We have just got to stop the spending here 

in Congress, and this is creating new programs, new offices, new 

bureaucracy, new federal employees, and we have just got to stop 

the spending or halt the growth of government, and it is just critical. 

Would you accept my amendment if we could work together just 

to have the oversight of that already existing agency? 

Chairman GORDON. You know, I am afraid I couldn’t, Dr. Broun, 

because this is knocking out the entire Title V, and I think there 

are a variety of good proposals there, so I regret to say that I could 

not do that. 

Mr. BROUN. Would the Chairman yield? 

Chairman GORDON. If he still has some time, yes. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The point is, in Title V 

these are duplicative programs. We already have the facility to do 

these things without having Title V, and that is the only reason to 

take that out. It is a big slash, I agree, but we need to be slashing 

government instead of growing government, and that is my whole 

purpose of this. We have got to stop the growth of government. We 

have got to stop the spending here in Washington, D.C. That is the 

purpose so that is the reason I bring forth this amendment, and 

I think it just makes sense. Our American people are demanding 

less government, and I hope that Members of the Committee will 

support this amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Dr. Broun. It is really more of 

a coordination rather than duplication that was the reason for that, 

but I think Mr. Luja ́n wanted to be recognized. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and while I appreciate 

the sentiments of making sure that we are being fiscally responsible by looking at programs, Mr. Chairman, I think that we also 

have to take into consideration the importance of how we can push 

technology out. As we look at evaluations that have come out of 

GAO [Government Accountability Office], out of Sandia National 

Laboratories, out of the Department of Energy and even other labs 

that have been interviewed, Mr. Chairman, we continue to hear 

that the lack of ability where we can encourage programs to bring 

people together either through innovation hubs or through clusters, 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
563 

as we look at the innovation section of this legislation to accelerate 

commercialization, manufacturing, areas where these ideas will be 

modeled after Bell Labs, the Manhattan Project labs and bioenergy 

research centers, I truly hope that these are ideas that we can look 

and work together where I know that they have been supported by 

both sides of the aisle, and I know that Ranking Member Hall is 

fond of a former Member from New Mexico, Manuel Luja ́n, that 

also served on this committee and served as its Ranking Member 

who adopted and really supported and encouraged what we should 

be doing to look to support this side of activity as well, Mr. Chairman. 

So again, I just want to hope that we don’t lose sight that we can 

help and accelerate these sides, and I yield back my time. 

Chairman GORDON. Does anyone else wish to be recognized? Mr. 

Carnahan is recognized. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Real briefly, I had 

heard specifically from our Missouri Enterprise program that 

serves the St. Louis region and much of Missouri that asked me to 

speak up on this amendment because they believe that the innovation section truly enhances the competitive grant program that has 

been authorized. It adds another theme, reduction of energy usage 

and environmental waste to improve profitability and accelerate 

domestic commercialization of new product technologies to be considered by NIST and MEP [Manufacturing Extension Parntership] 

when offering these competitive grants, and then in addition the 

market demand analysis section will require NIST and MEP to 

verify that any product or service they require the centers to offer 

will be one that is relevant and needed by small and medium-sized 

manufacturing clients which are certainly key in our region and 

therefore I would ask our colleagues respectfully to oppose the 

amendment. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Wu is recognized. 

Mr. WU. Thank you very much. 

I very much respect Mr. Broun’s passion and consistency on this 

set of issues but with all due respect, I must with equal passion 

and fervor disagree and urge rejection of this amendment because 

it is precisely this battle for the future and this battle for economic 

growth and in essence creating seed corn for future economic 

growth that creation of this section and this innovation agenda and 

lodging it at NIST, that is what this is all about. Let there be no 

mistake: The role of innovation in our society and our economy is 

absolutely essential. The vast majority of economists agree that 

more than 50 percent of American economic growth since World 

War II is the result of innovation, not more labor, not more materials, but the way that labor and materials are blended together to 

produce products and services and jobs. Solow got a Nobel Prize for 

determining that from the 1890s to mid-century, 90 percent of 

American economic growth was because of innovation and innovative ideas. It is not just the creation of a lot of jobs from innovation 

but it is precisely because it also creates high-wage middle-class 

jobs, which we sorely need today, and centralizing some of these innovation ideas at NIST is entirely appropriate. NIST is a non-regulatory body. It is highly popular with the private sector. It has done 

a good job with the many other things that have been assigned to 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
564 

it, as Mr. Broun cited, in its standards work, and it has thus far 

done a good piecework in innovation and this section permits NIST 

to rationalize that process and bring the innovation agenda into 

focus in one place. 

We are here creating the seed corn for future economic growth. 

There is a lot of room to cut in the federal budget but I submit to 

you that this is precisely the wrong place to cut it. I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Broun is right and this 

is duplicative. We should not be spending money that is already 

being—that some other agencies and departments already have the 

responsibility. Duplication is a waste of money. I support Mr. 

Broun’s amendment and would yield my time to him. 

Mr. BROUN. I thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher, for yielding me some 

time. 

I don’t understand. I hear from our colleagues on the other side 

that we need innovation, and I agree. I am not surprised that Mr. 

Luja ́n and Mr. Wu oppose the amendment but I think most Members of this committee understand that I believe in the Constitution as it was originally intended and think that we should only 

be doing the 18 things that Article I, section 8 gives us the authority to do and no more. That is what our Founding Fathers meant. 

NIST is one of those things that is truly constitutional. I am a 

strong supporter of NIST and I am a strong supporter of a very aggressive NIST as well as I am a strong supporter of research and 

development and scientific inquiry and all those things. 

But I don’t understand how eliminating Title V is going to decrease innovation, how it is going to stop any promotion or advertising, and if the Chairman or the Subcommittee Chairman, I 

would like to ask one or both of you to please explain to me how 

eliminating Title V would inhibit innovation, how it would inhibit 

the promotion or advertising. I just don’t understand how that 

would happen. So I would yield to either or both for that answer. 

Chairman GORDON. Would you also yield to Mr. Peters? I think 

he would like to— 

Mr. BROUN. Well, anybody who can answer how eliminating Title 

V, which is totally duplicative to other functions of the Federal 

Government. We already have these things in place. Why add another one? I would like to hear somebody answer me, and I will be 

glad to yield to anybody who can answer me. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Peters is recognized. 

Mr. PETERS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is not directly to 

the question Mr. Broun is asking but what happens with the elimination of Title V. There is a critical component of it that I am very 

concerned about, and that is the elimination of the federal loan 

guarantees for manufacturing. As a person who represents an 

awful lot of manufacturing companies, it is probably the number 

one problem right now that manufacturers are facing because of 

the credit crisis that we are in, that they are not able to get the 

lending that they need in order to expand their manufacturing to 

move forward. As their collateral has dropped, they are finding 

that the commercial banks are simply not lending to them. They 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
565 

are in a position right now where they can create jobs right now, 

and yet they cannot get the liquidity necessary to go forward. 

It was certainly one of the number one items brought forward to 

us by the National Association of Manufacturers. NAM testified to 

this component of it. In fact, it was Governor Engler, the former 

governor of my state, that was very strong in his testimony that 

federal loan guarantees are essential to manufacturing right now 

and essential to American competitiveness and see this as a major 

problem with this amendment. 

Mr. BROUN. I need to reclaim my time. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Actually, Mr. Chairman, I think I have the 

time. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. If it is duplicative, it is duplicative. If there 

are other loan guarantee areas in the Federal Government, various 

departments and agencies, that is a major question that needs to 

be addressed, not just the validity of helping our manufacturers 

through loan guarantees, and I would then again yield back the 

one minute that I have left to Mr. Broun. 

Mr. BROUN. Well, thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

I agree that manufacturing has some problems but we already 

have, as Mr. Rohrabacher said, as I said in my statement, we already have these programs. They are duplicative. Your manufacturing base can already get loans through SBA and through other 

entities. We have got to get the pressure off the small community 

banks so that they can lend money to small business and to manufacturing entities and the Federal Government is busily closing 

small banks and is not able to loan money to your manufacturing 

entities as well as other small businesses. These programs are duplicative. They are totally unneeded and that is the reason that I 

brought forth this amendment, and I think a vote for this is just 

a vote for growing the size of government and spending more 

money that we don’t have, and so I hope that you all will reconsider. Let us stop these duplicative programs. Let us stop this language that is just so vague that anything could fit, and I encourage 

adoption of my amendment. I yield back. Thank you. 

Chairman GORDON. The Chairman yields to himself. 

Dr. Broun raises legitimate questions but I think they are off 

point in this. Yes, Mr. Rohrabacher, there are additional types of 

loan guarantee programs and bonding programs elsewhere but they 

are for different purposes, and this one is specific, and so I want 

to read to you on page 70 under the coordination and non-duplication section. It says, ‘‘Coordination and non-duplication. To the 

maximum extent practicable, the Secretary shall ensure that the 

activities carried out under this section are coordinated with and 

do not duplicate the efforts of other loan guarantee programs within the Federal Government.’’ So yes, SBA has some loan guarantee 

programs but they wouldn’t be for these types of manufacturers. 

So, again, I sincerely hope that your concerns have been addressed 

by virtue of this, and I yield to you. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate that. But what 

is to prevent them from duplicating it? Because I see very little coordination within the Federal Government from one agency to another on anything. So— 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
566 

Chairman GORDON. If I could regain— 

Mr. BROUN. Yes, sir. 

Chairman GORDON. That is the mandate. They are mandating 

not to duplicate. So it is our Committee’s responsibility in oversight 

to make sure that occurs. 

Mr. BROUN. Well, I appreciate the Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. And I yield back. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you. I appreciate it. 

I hope we will do that, but frankly, I have very little confidence 

in this Federal Government. I have very little confidence in one 

agency working with another to try to prevent duplication of any 

services because we have never seen that happen, to my knowledge, and it is—because each department, each agency wants to 

grow itself as much as possible so I hope that this committee in the 

Chairman’s absence in the future—and I also likewise have enjoyed 

serving with the Chairman and I am going to miss you personally 

as a friend, but I hope whoever is running this committee, hopefully it is going to be Mr. Hall in the next Congress, but hopefully 

we will keep their feet to the fire and not have duplication. I thank 

you, Chairman, for yielding. 

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, would you please take away the gentleman’s pizza for that remark? 

Chairman GORDON. Let me just say that Mr. Hall is very flexible 

so he may be Chairman of this committee in the future. You never 

know. 

Dr. Broun, I am going to make you a present of this section here, 

so you will have it. Part of this committee’s responsibility next year 

should be oversight, and you can show where to go. 

So if there is no further discussion, the vote is on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The no’s have it. The 

amendment is not agreed to. Yes, Dr. Broun? 

Mr. BROUN. I request a recorded vote, please, sir. 

Chairman GORDON. A recorded vote is requested, and the clerk 

will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Chairman Gordon? 

Chairman GORDON. No. 

The CLERK. Chairman Gordon votes no. Mr. Costello? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Johnson? 

Ms. JOHNSON. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Johnson votes no. Ms. Woolsey? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Wu? 

Mr. WU. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wu votes no. Mr. Baird? 

Mr. BAIRD. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Baird votes no. Mr. Miller? 

Mr. MILLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Miller votes no. Mr. Lipinski? 

Mr. LIPINSKI. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lipinski votes no. Ms. Giffords? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Edwards? 

Ms. EDWARDS. No. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
567 

The CLERK. Ms. Edwards votes no. Ms. Fudge? 

Ms. FUDGE. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Fudge votes no. Mr. Luja ́n? 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Luja ́n votes no. Mr. Tonko? 

Mr. TONKO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Tonko votes no. Mr. Garamendi? 

Mr. GARAMENDI. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Garamendi votes no. Mr. Rothman? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Matheson? 

Mr. MATHESON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Matheson votes no. Mr. Chandler? 

Mr. CHANDLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chandler votes no. Mr. Davis? 

Mr. DAVIS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Davis votes no. Mr. Carnahan? 

Mr. CARNAHAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Carnahan votes no. Mr. Hill? 

Mr. HILL. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hill votes no. Mr. Mitchell? 

Mr. MITCHELL. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Mitchell votes no. Mr. Wilson? 

Mr. WILSON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wilson votes no. Mrs. Dahlkemper? 

Mrs. DAHLKEMPER. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Dahlkemper votes no. Mr. Grayson? 

Mr. GRAYSON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Grayson votes no. Ms. Kosmas? 

Ms. KOSMAS. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Kosmas votes no. Mr. Peters? 

Mr. PETERS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Peters votes no. Mr. Hall? 

Mr. HALL. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hall votes aye. Mr. Sensenbrenner? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Lamar Smith? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye. Mr. Bartlett? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Lucas? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mrs. Biggert? 

Mrs. BIGGERT. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Biggert votes no. Mr. Akin? 

Mr. AKIN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Akin votes aye. Mr. Neugebauer? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis? 

Mr. INGLIS. Aye. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
568 

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis votes aye. Mr. McCaul? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Diaz-Balart? 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Diaz-Balart votes aye. Mr. Bilbray? 

Mr. BILBRAY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bilbray votes aye. Mr. Adrian Smith? 

Mr. SMITH OF NEBRASKA. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Adrian Smith votes aye. Mr. Broun? 

Mr. BROUN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Broun votes aye. Mr. Olson? 

[No response.] 

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be recorded as no, 

please. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Rothman. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rothman votes no. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, I vote no. 

The CLERK. Ms. Giffords is not recorded. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. I vote no. 

The CLERK. Ms. Giffords votes no. 

Chairman GORDON. Anyone else that hasn’t been recorded? If 

not, the clerk will report. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, eight Members vote aye and 25 Members vote no. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
569 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116c.eps
570 

Chairman GORDON. The amendment is not passed. 

Before we move on to the next amendment, we are almost halfway through, and the Chairman has been asked for mercy, and so 

in respect to human beings here, we are going to take about a 20- 

minute break, which puts us back at 1:00, and everyone is invited 

to the Chairman’s lounge for pizza and cold drinks. 

Mr. BROUN. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Dr. Broun. 

Mr. BROUN. Dr. Baird withdrew my pizza permit. I ask unanimous consent that it be reinstated. 

Chairman GORDON. With unanimous consent, Dr. Broun is allocated one piece. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman GORDON. We will return to order, and the next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by the gentleman from 

Michigan, Dr. Ehlers. Are you ready to proceed with your amendment? 

Mr. EHLERS. I am ready. The amendment is at the desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment 284, amendment to the amendment in 

the nature of a substitute to H.R. 5116 offered by Mr. Ehlers of 

Michigan. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is somewhat along 

the lines of the previous amendment offered by Dr. Broun but is 

targeted in a specific way, and it will simply require that the Loan 

Guarantee Program include among its eligibility criteria written 

evidence from potential purchasers that a market exists for the 

product for which the loan is requested. 

Now, that may sound a little cumbersome, but when you analyze 

it, it is not cumbersome at all because the information I am suggesting that they have to provide is simply the—to show that there 

is a potential market demand for the proposed innovation. 

The amount of information required is minimal, and in fact, anyone wishing to go into manufacturing and—or developing the innovation that they are seeking money for has to provide exactly the 

same information to a bank that would provide a portion of the 

funding, too. 

So it would simply say that the Federal Government would be 

furnished with the same information that the bank would, and 

therefore, we don’t impose any bad requirements or troublesome requirements but at the same time we get substantial evidence that 

they have done their homework before requesting the money and 

that there—this is likely to result in a market for the project or the 

program or manufacturing equipment that they are seeking to 

fund. 

So I urge adoption of this amendment. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers. It is an excellent 

amendment and I think brings clarity to a good program. 

Does anyone else wish to be recognized? 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
571 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Hall is recognized. 

Mr. HALL. This is a good government amendment that simply insures that applicants for manufacturing loan guarantees demonstrate that there is a market for the products they are wanting 

to manufacture, and this will help protect taxpayer dollars from 

subsidizing products that don’t have a reasonable chance to succeed 

in the marketplace. 

I understand this language is modeled on similar provisions in 

other Loan Guarantee Programs. I urge the Members to support it. 

Chairman GORDON. Is there further discussion? 

If there is no further discussion, then the vote occurs on the 

amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. 

The amendment is agreed to. 

The next amendment on the roster in an amendment offered by 

the gentleman from Maryland, Dr. Bartlett. Are you ready to proceed with your amendment? 

Mr. BARTLETT. I am, sir. I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment 287, amendment to the amendment in 

the nature of a substitute to H.R. 5116 offered by Mr. Bartlett of 

Maryland. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The program has a 

loan portion without any process on how to administer the loans, 

and this amendment simply incorporates the Office of Management 

and Budget Circular number A, 129, for administration of our 

loans. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Dr. Bartlett, and once again, another good clarifying amendment. 

Mr. Hall is recognized. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, this is, as you say, another good government amendment. It simply requires the Department of Commerce to manage the Loan Guarantee Program consistent with the 

Office of Management and Budget’s long-standing guidelines on 

programs like this. 

This will minimize the program risk and help protect taxpayer 

dollars. As a part of an OMB directive, this should be expected of 

the agency, but Dr. Bartlett’s amendment would solidify this by 

making it explicit in the law. 

It is a good amendment, so I hope we support it. 

Chairman GORDON. If there is no further discussion, then the 

vote is on the amendment. All in favor of the amendment, say aye. 

Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. 

The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 

the gentleman from California, Mr. Bilbray. 

Mr. BILBRAY. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the 

desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
572 

The CLERK. Amendment 290, amendment to the amendment in 

the nature of a substitute to H.R. 5116 offered by Mr. Bilbray of 

California. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes. 

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this is 

just a Sense of Congress that we keep the evolution that actually 

was started during the Clinton Administration, was carried on by 

the Bush Administration, and has now been aggressively implemented by the Obama Administration, and that is to make sure 

that wherever the taxpayers’ funds and guarantees go, so goes, too, 

the assurance that only those legally present in the country will be 

hired under this program or under these auspices, and this really 

just is a Sense of Congress. 

As I am proud to say, you were an original cosponsor of Mr. 

Shuler’s bill that would have made this application universal and 

eliminated the need for these kind of amendments, but it is the 

Sense of Congress that as we implement these programs that have 

job opportunities in there, we make sure that we keep our commitment to the American people that their tax dollars are not being 

used to violate the federal law and e-verifies very simple. It is so 

simple that every Member of Congress uses it, so I guess that is 

prima facie evidence that anybody can use it. 

And I just ask that we approve this as a Sense of Congress. The 

Administration, I am sure, will understand our intentions here and 

follow suit as they have just recently with requiring all contractors 

in the federal system to use e-verify. 

And with that I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Bilbray. As I had mentioned 

earlier, there were some potential concern about the small and medium-sized individuals. Mr. Smith, who has a lot of background in 

this, doesn’t seem to think that will be a problem, but I don’t oppose this amendment, and we will be discussing with you if there 

does seem to be an implementation problem with smaller people. 

Does anyone else wish to be—Dr. Broun is recognized. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise to speak for this 

amendment. I think it is common sense as Mr. Bilbray said. It is 

currently federal law that no one, including the Federal Government, should hire an illegal alien, should rent to or harbor an illegal alien in any manner. 

Currently the only way we have of trying as an employer, even 

in the Federal Government, is to verify legal status of an individual 

is to utilize e-verify. I have a bill that I introduced in the last Congress called Improve E-Verify, that I think will strengthen that program, and so I am a strong proponent of e-verify. 

I am very concerned as I just move around the capitol in the office buildings here, I speak to a number of folks who don’t understand when I say in English, even with my Southern accent, I 

know that a lot of people from other parts of the country can’t understand what I say either, but they answer in Spanish and say 

‘‘no comprende,’’ and I am very concerned that the Federal Government is hiring illegal aliens, and this is just a common sense 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
573 

amendment that puts into—or codifies that these programs must 

utilize e-verify. 

So I am a very strong supporter of this amendment. I hope the 

whole Committee will support it, and I yield back. 

Chairman GORDON. If there—oh. Mr. Luja ́n is recognized. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Mr. Chairman, I just hope that as we look to make 

sure we are embracing diversity that speaking multiple languages 

is something that we embrace, Mr. Chairman, and something that 

I hope is encouraged. It is encouraged in my home state, my great 

state, and I think that as we engage in a global business, that is 

something that should be embraced and not discouraged, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. BROUN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. I yield back my time. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Luja ́n, my daughter—we are talking 

about what language my daughter is going to take next fall, so you 

are absolutely correct. We will be a better country as we can reach 

out rather than just being reached to. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, would you yield? 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you. Just to clarify some matters. 

Very few people are concerned about illegal immigration or English 

as the official language. I don’t know anybody who opposes the idea 

of having people be able to speak more than one language. That is 

obviously something that would be a great benefit and a great 

asset. The only objection that I have heard through the Democratic 

process and of our country is people raising the issue of whether 

or not we should do official business in another language, which 

would then discourage certain people from having—to taking the 

effort to learn English as a language, because that is their second 

language. 

Every country that I know of that has had more than one official 

language has incredible problems because of it. You have separation of people rather than unity of people. So while I certainly 

agree with my colleague, Mr. Luja ́n, that we should never discourage someone, and by the way, I speak enough Spanish to get by 

on, and I lived with a Mexican family in Mexico when I was younger, and I think it is a wonderful thing that the son of that household spoke English as well as Spanish and that I know a little 

Spanish to be able to function that way, too. 

But in our country, just as Mexico needs Spanish as their language, we need English as our language to keep us together. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. One last point, and that is we now have seen 

a great deal of consternation over what has been going on in Arizona, and let us just hope that we can get control of his massive 

flow of illegals into our country and we—that we take the steps 

that are necessary to discourage that flow into our country by what 

Mr. Bilbray’s amendment is all about. At least we are trying to 

make sure that the Federal Government—I don’t think any company should be providing jobs that will encourage people to come 

across the border illegally. Otherwise we are going to be forced to 

take even more—I would say powerful steps that may be a little 

less palatable, in order to get control of a situation that is now just 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
574 

totally out of control in various neighborhoods in my state where 

people are being raped and murdered by people that shouldn’t be 

here because they are here illegally. We have got, of course, 

healthcare and education that is just going down because of this, 

and the quality for ordinary Americans of their healthcare and 

their education is being diminished. 

We can’t let that happen, and that is why Mr. Bilbray and I and 

others have been so diligent on the issue, and I would yield to my 

friend, Mr. Broun. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher, for yielding. I am really sorry that Mr. Luja ́n would not yield me time, and particularly 

the tone of voice that he refused the time to me. 

I was just going to answer your comment by telling you that my 

wife is tri-lingual. She speaks Spanish as well as Portuguese very 

fluently. She grew up in Indiana. She is a Native-born American. 

Her parents are both American citizens. She learned to speak Portuguese in Brazil when she lived there. She learned to speak Spanish in Honduras. Her education was in language education. Her 

first job was teaching English as a second language. We have a 19- 

year-old son, and I and my wife have encouraged him to learn 

Spanish because I understand the importance of American citizens, 

particularly the youth of this country, to be able to speak Spanish 

fluently. 

I myself am bilingual. I speak South Georgian English, and I 

speak South Georgian redneck, but—and I wish I could speak 

Spanish. I did take Spanish in high school and in college. 

I believe in a bilingual education. I believe that my kids and 

your—all of our kids should be able to speak Spanish. 

I am concerned about the official language of our country. I introduced in Resources Bill if the site that we are going to vote on tomorrow was put into place, that English would be the official language of Puerto Rico if it is ever accepted as a state. It was rejected 

on a partisan line, and I am very discouraged with that. I introduced an amendment to the bill for tomorrow that would do the 

same thing. My guess is that my amendment is not going to be accepted. 

So I am sorry you took that tone of voice and that kind of an attitude, because I do believe in Spanish education. I do believe in 

Spanish and bilingual ability, and you and I agree on that. I just 

wanted to make that comment, and so I yield back, and I thank 

Mr. Rohrabacher for yielding. 

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Dr. Baird is recognized. 

Mr. BAIRD. If I may, I will yield to Mr. Luja ́n in just one moment. For my friend, Mr. Rohrabacher, be careful the next time 

you see the Swiss ambassador because he may have a difference of 

opinion about how dysfunctional his country is with multiple official languages. 

Secondly, Mr. Broun, I actually support your amendment, and I 

am an advocate of English, promoting English within our country, 

but the concern I had with respect was there seemed to be an assumption that if someone answers you in Spanish, that is prima 

facie evidence that they are here illegally, and that was a concern 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
575 

I had, and I would yield to Mr. Luja ́n if he wants to speak about 

this. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. And Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time. I in no regard meant to offend any of my colleagues here, but my concerns 

did reflect those shared by Chairman Baird, Mr. Chairman, and 

sometimes I think, especially as a new Member, I may take things 

a little personal where there is concerns, but by no means did I 

mean to cause any offense. I do apologize if that was caused. 

I just certainly hope as we go forward because of some of the 

issues that have been raised around the country, that this is something that we are just—we just pay attention to a little bit. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BILBRAY. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Broun asked me to yield, and I am happy to. 

Mr. BROUN. Thanks, Dr. Baird. I appreciate you yielding to me 

another moment or two, and I didn’t want to—if my comment—I 

apologize also if my comment about people answering me in Spanish is any indication of their legal status here, because I have no 

questions about that. 

My hope is that every one of them and my assumption is actually 

that every person who this Federal Government hires is here legally. I hope that that is true. I assume that that is true, just like 

I assume a lot of things that will be in question from our Administration and its statuses in this—about legal status of some members of our Administration being in this country. I don’t question 

those things, but the point is we need to insure and my whole comment was geared towards we need to insure that the people that 

the Federal Government hires are here legally. That is what the 

law, federal law states, and that was my own comment. 

So if I misstated or people misconstrued my statement, I apologize, and I hope that you will forgive me for doing so. 

And then on a personal note I want to thank you for the garlic 

and the pepper that you gave me for lunch. It gave me—at least 

that bit of lunch. I actually did sneak a little bit of pizza, and I 

appreciate it, Dr. Baird. 

Thank you so much. I yield back. 

Mr. BAIRD. De acverdo de compan ̃ ero. Rconozco Sen ̃ or Bilbray. 

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, look. We are not talking language 

here. In fact, I have seen studies that the second largest group of 

illegals in this country are Canadians. Okay. We are talking about 

the fact that there has been a policy in this country since the ’90s 

that we do not subsidize illegal immigration. Since ’96, it has been 

illegal to hire illegals, and we have an obligation to the American 

people to make sure their tax money is not subsidizing the violation of our laws. 

All this does is continue a process that has been bipartisan. Mr. 

Shuler has been a great leader on that. Many of the Members here 

are original cosponsors, and this is the only way we can really look 

our constituents in the face and say, your tax—we have done everything we can to make sure your tax dollars are not subsidizing an 

illegal activity when it comes to the immigration status of employees. 

This is a very simple system. Everybody is using it, and again, 

if Congress can use it, it just shows you how simple it is, and it 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
576 

is one of those items that is a minimal kind of thing that we should 

do every time we talk about a grant, every time we talk about a 

contract we should do that, and I am very happy to see that the 

new Administration has been very aggressive at applying this to all 

contractors. I just think we should keep up the good work. A Sense 

of Congress as the Administration should apply the same concept 

to these grants. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. BAIRD. To close out, before my time expires, there is just one 

other side to this that I think we need to also mention. The contrary is also true. We have suffered in lost competitiveness in many 

ways because world-class scientists, Nobel Prize winners, et cetera, 

from around the world have become increasingly disinclined to visit 

our country, and I have spoken literally to Nobel Prize winners 

who at our arrival points in JFK or elsewhere have been harassed 

by border people, and these folks have been invited by prestigious 

universities and conferences to come and share their wisdom and 

knowledge with us, and they have been treated—because they were 

from another country, they were somehow subhuman. 

Now, we need to also recognize that. I don’t disagree with the 

amendment. I support it, but we need to equally make sure we are 

more welcoming to folks who are coming here legally who have 

something to share with us, and I hope we will also look at that. 

Chairman GORDON. Is there any— 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Yes, sir. Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield my time to Mr. Bilbray. 

Mr. BILBRAY. Just one point to close on, Mr. Chairman. One of 

the big successes of this program, it applies to everyone across the 

board. It does not pick some are checked, and some are not. All applicants, all employees, and it is equal protection and equal enforcement no matter who it is, where they come from, how they 

speak, or how they may look. Everybody is treated equally on this 

program, and that is the secret of its success. 

And I yield back. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Grayson is recognized. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that this amendment is outside or at least partially outside of our jurisdiction. It 

seems to me that this is a matter that is more properly before 

other committees of the House and that raising this matter is out 

of order, and I ask for a ruling on that. 

Chairman GORDON. I would ask our counsel for advice. 

Well, the ruling, Mr. Grayson, is that the bill is relevant, the 

amendment is relevant to the underlying text. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Well, I would like to explore that for a moment if 

I may. Since there are other committees like the Homeland Security Committee, the Education and Labor Committee that might 

properly claim jurisdiction over this amendment, doesn’t this potentially compromise the integrity of the bill itself by requiring the bill 

itself to be referred to those committees before Floor action? 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Grayson, I think the important thing 

here is that it is a Sense of Congress and not a mandate and that 

it is an area within only the jurisdiction of our Committee. 

It would only apply to Title V there. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
577 

Mr. GRAYSON. All right. I am concerned about this, and I may 

raise this issue again, and I think that if this becomes a pattern 

on the part of the minority, then they may see me among other 

things asking for amendments like this to have a ruling and then 

appealing the ruling of the Chair and having a vote specifically on 

whether these amendments are germane, because frankly, I think 

they are not. I think they are political grandstanding. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Grayson. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I would like the gentleman’s 

words to be taken down. That last comment was over the line. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Well, I would remind the gentleman— 

Chairman GORDON. Let us see, Mr. Grayson. Your time has expired. I would hope that Mr. Rohrabacher doesn’t ask for time, but 

if he does, he will get it. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I will not ask for time. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. I think that 

we are about concluding this discussion. I think it demonstrates 

this is a sensitive issue that needs to be really a small part of a 

larger issue that we need to have a national conversation and a 

Congressional conversation respectful of all, but today we are dealing in a much more narrow sense. It is simply a Sense of Congress, 

and if I hear no further discussion, then the vote occurs on the 

amendment. 

All in favor of the amendment, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes 

have it. The amendment is agreed to. 

The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 

the gentleman from Illinois, Dr. Lipinski. Are you ready to proceed 

with your amendment? 

Mr. LIPINSKI. I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment 062, amendment to the amendment in 

the nature of a substitute to H.R. 5116 offered by Mr. Lipinski of 

Illinois. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain the amendment. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 

for the pizza. Hopefully I make things run a little more smoothly 

this afternoon. 

My amendment would create jobs and support American manufacturers by improving procurement at our national labs and accelerators. Requires the Director of the DOE Office of Science to develop a plan for increasing purchases for domestic sources, especially purchases of hardware and instrumentation that we do not 

currently manufacture, and that is to develop a plan to do this. 

The primary target of this amendment is not so-called commercial off-the-shelf, or COTS, hardware, but rather custom manufactured components that are used to built accelerators and other 

large scientific instruments. By fostering closer collaboration between Office of Science facilities and the small manufacturers who 

could fabricate these specialized parts, this amendment will result 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
578 

in faster, more efficient procurement and products that better meet 

the precise scientific needs of our labs. 

This amendment supports high-skill engineering, machining, assembly, and testing jobs at small companies throughout the country. These are manufacturing jobs that support innovation, not only 

at our national labs, but also in the chemical, semiconductor, and 

biotechnology sectors. 

We need these jobs and the ability to manufacture cutting-edge 

equipment. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I 

think this can be very helpful in making sure that we have American manufacturers who remain on the cutting edge. It doesn’t put 

in any requirements except to develop a plan to increase these purchases from domestic sources, so I believe we shouldn’t run into 

any problems there. Hopefully we can agree on this, and I urge my 

colleagues to support this amendment. 

And I yield back. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Hall is recognized. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the gentleman 

would like to increase the amount of equipment used in DOE research projects that is produced here in the United States, however, I would like to ask Dr. Lipinski what he really means by the 

term, ‘‘domestically-produced hardware,’’ in his amendment. Is it— 

is hardware limited to electronics? Is it broader, and if so, what all 

does it encompass? Equipment, computers, electronics. What—how 

narrow or how wide is your expectation of the word, in using the 

word, ‘‘hardware?’’ 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Well, we are really talking about custom-manufactured equipment that is used at the national labs. That is what we 

are looking at, that is what it calls for the plan to encompass. So 

that is what we are looking at. 

I yield back. 

Mr. HALL. I think you have satisfied my question. Thank you. 

Chairman GORDON. Further discussion on this good amendment? 

If not, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. 

Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. 

The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 

the gentlelady from Illinois, Mrs. Biggert. Are you ready to proceed 

with your amendment? 

Mrs. BIGGERT. I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment 101, amendment to the amendment in 

the nature of a substitute offered by Mrs. Biggert of Illinois. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentlelady for five minutes to explain her amendment. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As a follow up to our 

Energy Subcommittee discussion on earmarks in the Office of 

Science, I offer an amendment that would call attention to projects 

often paid for in the science account that may not support its mission, and with the language the Secretary would detail potential 

unmet needs and objectives that otherwise would have been met by 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
579 

the Office of Science if Congressionally-directed projects did not 

carve out a significant share of its funding. 

And the example that I mentioned in the subcommittee and one 

that some of your may recall is the Office of Science being earmarked for MRI machines in the last few years, and they cost 

about $1 million a piece, and our—we are earmarking for various 

hospitals. Now, MRIs at one time were—would have been research 

and development, but I think that this is something that takes 

away money for much-needed research, and I think we need to stop 

the practice and keep every research dollar where it belongs in 

basic research. 

So—and I am also confident that I think with this—with the 

amendment it would detour those from using science to pay for 

their pet projects when the project does not meet science—does not 

merit science research funding. 

And with that I would urge passage of the amendment and yield 

back. 

Chairman GORDON. If there is no further discussion, let me just 

quickly say that, again, I think one of the benefits of having vigorous subcommittee meetings is to find out these sorts of things. 

I am glad you discovered it. This would be a good addition to our 

bill. 

And if there is no further discussion, then the vote occurs on the 

amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. 

The amendment is agreed to. 

The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 

the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Inglis. Is he here? Then 

we will give him just a moment if he is—he is pretty prompt. 

Okay. Here he goes. 

Mr. INGLIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman GORDON. Okay. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment 025, amendment to the amendment in 

the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Inglis of South Carolina. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. INGLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a very simple 

amendment we discussed in Subcommittee that simply adds the 

words, ‘‘including hydrogen,’’ after liquid transportation fuels, and 

so the Office of Science’s Biological and Environmental Research 

Program is reauthorizing COMPETES. The language bears several 

differences from existing statute, one of them being that the mention of hydrogen has been removed. 

This amendment restores an emphasis on hydrogen so this Administration is reminded of Congress’s commitment to hydrogen future. 

We had some discussion at the Subcommittee that the idea is 

simply to make sure that the deletion of the language doesn’t give 

rise to the implication that it is intentional to take hydrogen out 

of this opportunity afforded by this section. 

So it is simply adding the words, ‘‘including hydrogen,’’ after liquid transportation fuels. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
580 

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Is there further discussion on this, again, 

good amendment? 

If not, then the vote is called on the amendment. All in favor, say 

aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. 

The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 

the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Smith. Are you ready to proceed 

with your amendment? 

Mr. SMITH OF NEBRASKA. I am, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment 005, amendment to the amendment in 

the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Smith of Nebraska. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEBRASKA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This 

amendment reinserts in the bill language, included in the committee print but omitted from the ANS [amendment in the nature 

of a substitute], requiring the Director of the Office of Science to 

report to Congress periodically on the Bio-energy Research Center 

authorized in the bill. 

The amendment requires the Director to prepare and transmit to 

Congress a research plan describing how activities authorized 

under the program will be undertaken within one year of enactment. The Director will also be required to update the research 

plan and report back to Congress every three years following the 

initial report. 

This amendment replaces a previous reporting requirement 

which will be inadvertently deleted by repelling Section 977 of the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005, in this reauthorization. Because my 

amendment permits the Director to base his initial research plan 

on these previously-published plans, the burden of this requirement on the Office of Science should be minimal. 

I thank the Chairman for his consideration, and I yield back. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Is there further discussion on the amendment? 

If not, then the vote is on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. 

Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. 

The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 

the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Olson. Are you ready to proceed 

with your amendment? 

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk 

and ask for its immediate consideration. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment 003, amendment to the amendment in 

the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Olson of Texas. 

hairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the 

reading. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
581 

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to offer 

this amendment. 

This amendment strikes activities regarding climate and environmental science activities from the underlying legislation. As is, this 

provision undermines the goal and purpose of this legislation, 

which has been sold as promoting competition and creating jobs, including climate research. This bill does neither. 

In fact, by supporting efforts to collect information, the Administration has stated they will use to provide the background to create 

more regulation on businesses, this is the antithesis of a job creator. 

In the district I represent, which has one of the largest petrochemical facilities in the entire world, the companies I have met 

with vindicated they will lose thousands of jobs. Again, this is not 

a job creator. This is not meant to trigger debate on the virtue of 

this research but to raise the point that this bill is not the vehicle 

in which it should be included, and as such I urge the adoption of 

the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Olson. 

Mr. Hall is recognized. 

Mr. HALL. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment strikes 

the climate and environmental activities from the bill. However, it 

in no way prohibits the Department to continue to perform this research, and I agree with Mr. Olson that this section does not create 

jobs. 

It could, however, be used as one of the bases upon which a regulatory regime could be built, and such regulations would place onerous burdens on already-struggling businesses, thereby jeopardizing the very jobs this bill is intended to protect and to promote. 

Now, whether or not these activities should be authorized is a 

discussion for, I think, another time. This legislation is not the appropriate instrument for putting the Congressional stamp of approval on these activities. The section should be stripped out of the 

bill. 

I urge all my colleagues to vote for the amendment. 

Chairman GORDON. Dr. Baird is recognized. 

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this and oppose it for a couple of reasons. 

First of all, if the argument in support of the amendment is that 

a certain activity performed by an agency is inconsistent with the 

acronymic title of a bill, then we are going to have to be mighty 

careful or mighty broad with our acronyms. 

And more importantly and more substantively, there is a long 

history of fundamental research being conducted within this particular agency that is of significant benefit to climate research, 

whether or not one endorses the belief, and I don’t think it is a belief. It should be a judgment, not a belief, but whether or not one 

endorses the judgment about anthropogenic climate change. 

And let me give you some examples. In the early days of the 

Atomic Testing Program, a couple things became important. Tracking atmospheric distribution of the clouds that emerged from nuclear testing became central to understanding not only domestic 

testing but a potential ramification should these weapons be used 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
582 

in war. So a fair sophistication was developed in tracking plumes 

of radioactive material, and that turns out to be pretty helpful in 

climate. 

And to say, well, we are going to say you can’t use that research 

knowledge or technology or methodology just seems to be counterproductive. 

So, too, this entity was involved with decontamination of soils. 

Now, that is an environmental function, and in my district we have 

got the Hanford Nuclear Reservation right up the road, or up the 

river rather, and it is awfully important to us that we can learn 

more about decontamination, and my fear is that this amendment 

is going to really unwisely constrain key activities that are beneficial. 

And then finally, there is the implicit assumption that anything 

dealing with climate costs jobs. I think the evidence is actually to 

the contrary, but I would save that for another debate, but there 

are fundamental issues here of science that is applicable across a 

number of disciplines related to the environment and climate that 

I would hate to constrain and therefore, would encourage defeat of 

this amendment. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Dr. Baird. Let me just point out. 

I mean, you know, there are a variety of, I guess, opinions in terms 

of the validity of climate change. This is really not a discussion of 

climate change today. 

The Department of Energy was authorized to research climate 

research since the Global Change Research Act of 1990. So this is 

not something that was sort of sneaked in to give them a way to 

do something. This is authority they have had for many years. 

And does anyone else wish—Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I don’t fully understand why if we are already conducting climate research in various departments and 

agencies, why that has to do—has to be in this bill. Is that not— 

does that not obscure the purpose of this bill and for those of us 

who have a disagreement, an honest disagreement as to the nature 

of manmade climate change, we see much of the legislation, and, 

again, an honest disagreement, as to whether or not pursuing that 

creates jobs or hinders jobs. 

So including this in the bill, which is extraneous, because this 

type of research is going on elsewhere, does nothing but put the 

onus on those of us who do believe that manmade climate change 

is not what the folks on the other side of the aisle believe manmade 

climate change is, that puts us in a position of we are actually putting something into this bill that will work against the creation of 

jobs by our frame of reference. 

Why put this in the bill at all if you have got this type of research going on and permitted and financed in various pieces of 

legislation, various departments and agencies around the government? 

Mr. Olson, I would yield the balance of my time to Mr. Olson. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you to my friend, Mr. Rohrabacher, from California, and with respect to my colleague from Washington, I would 

just like to invite you to come down with respect to the job loss, 

sir. Come on down with me to the—to Texas to the Port of Houston 

and the petro-chemicals along that area. I will guarantee you they 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
583 

will talk to you about how climate change and the legislation that 

is pending before this Congress will cost them jobs, will increase 

their cost to doing business. Probably some of them are going to go 

overseas. 

And so the statement that it doesn’t affect jobs is just, at least 

in my world, that is not very accurate, and, again, I don’t believe 

that we should be doing this. We have got legislation and agencies 

throughout the Federal Government. My district also includes the 

Johnson Space Center, and we have got, as this committee knows, 

with Committee jurisdiction, there is tremendous changes and 

issues going on there. One of the changes is we are generating 

money by canceling the Constellation to change NASA [National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration] to get them more involved 

in climate control, climate monitoring, global monitoring. 

And, again, I don’t believe that is NASA’s—NASA’s fundamental 

mission is human spaceflight, and, again, I take a little umbrage 

to the fact that it does involve jobs. I mean, it really does, and I 

would love to have you come down and tour the Port of Houston 

facility. 

Yield back. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you. Let me just again point out, Mr. 

Rohrabacher asked a good question. Why is this in this bill? Well, 

the reason it is in this bill is that we are authorizing the Office of 

Science within the Department of Energy, and again, since at least 

1990, this has been part of their responsibility. 

So this is nothing new, and this is where it is supposed to be. 

It would be odd if it wasn’t there. 

And, you know, this is not a debate about climate change, and 

I even hate to get into that, but let me just point out that Vice 

President Cheney once said that if there was a one percent chance 

there was a terrorist attack, then we need to take strong action. 

You know, there may not be a consensus here, but I think at least 

one percent of this committee would think that climate change is 

real, and it wouldn’t be inappropriate, if necessary, you know, to 

have some research. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Would the gentleman yield? 

Chairman GORDON. Certainly. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, obviously that is true of all kinds of 

spending that is in various departments, all kinds of research 

projects that are in various departments and agencies. Why highlight one? Why highlight this particular one when obviously there 

is some fundamental, I would say honest, but fundamental disagreement on the validity of this whole theory. We are highlighting 

it here as compared to all those other programs that, like you say, 

are also within those departments and agencies. 

Chairman GORDON. Well, with all due respect, you are the ones 

that are highlighting it. We are—this is a part of an already existing function in the Office of Science within the Department of Energy, and so this is not something that is trying to be done that 

is special there. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. If no one else seeks— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Could I yield—I would ask that Mr. Olson— 

okay. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
584 

Chairman GORDON. Okay. If no one else seeks recognition, then 

the votes occur on the amendment. All in favor of the amendment, 

say aye. Opposed, no. The no’s have it. The amendment is not 

agreed to. 

The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 

the gentleman from California, Mr. Bilbray. Are you ready to proceed with your amendment? 

Okay. Excuse me. We will let Mr. Bilbray have a second shot at 

a later date, and let us see. You are the cosponsor? If you don’t 

mind, we will wait for Mr. Bilbray to come back, but now, he is 

going to have to wait his turn when he comes back. Okay. 

The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 

the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Neugebauer. Are you ready to proceed with your amendment? 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 068, amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Neugebauer of 

Texas. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think 

maybe this is a little bit of a continuation but a little bit different 

twist on the pervious discussion, and that is that it says that the 

top priority of the ARPA–E Program is to reduce our dependency 

on foreign oil. 

You know, throughout the—this bill before us, the reduction of 

greenhouse gas emission is emphasized as a policy objective, which 

I see regrettably at the expense of exclusion of energy independence. While the two can overlap, there are two important differences that we cannot ignore here. 

The most glaring is that technologies that sometimes enhance 

the development and production of conventional energy resources 

but these resources, you know, can sometimes increase the greenhouse gasses, by they are equally important. In fact, to many of us 

that we find that if we are truly going to be energy independent, 

that we will have to continue to develop some of those resources. 

But in doing so, you know, I believe that even though some of 

these may increase the greenhouse emissions, we can make sure 

that we do everything possible at the same time to reduce the impact or reduce the increase in greenhouse gases, but I think that 

any kind of research dollars or funding that we are doing as a Nation right now, I can’t think of a higher priority from a national 

security standpoint or an economic security standpoint or creating 

jobs, retaining jobs, but more importantly, making sure America 

does not lose its competitive edge. And we are on the edge here in 

many cases, particularly as our dependence on foreign energy, of 

really compromising our competitiveness in the reach of the world. 

In fact, when you look at the countries that we are competing for, 

they are all out circumnavigating the earth, making deals for enVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00590 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
585 

ergy resources in the future. So my concern is is this particular 

piece of legislation tilts us in the direction of reduction in greenhouse gases when I believe that a better, more sensible direction 

and directive ought to be that we work on energy independence as 

the primary goal and certainly as we are doing that, looking for 

ways to also reduce greenhouse gases. But I believe that this particular piece of legislation tilts us in the direction of just reduction 

of greenhouse gases is the primary objective, and I believe—I 

would hope that everyone on this committee believes that America’s dependency on foreign energy is a real threat to our country 

and that as a country one of our goals ought to be to move in the 

direction of energy independence. 

And so with that, Mr. Chairman, I would encourage folks to vote 

in favor of this amendment for the future of our country. 

Chairman GORDON. I appreciate my friend’s comments, and I 

share your interest in trying to reduce our dependency on oil, but 

I don’t want to change from being dependent on foreign oil to be 

dependent on foreign technology. So there is a balance. If we want 

to become energy independent, I think that we need to be looking 

for all sources, and already, a main purpose of ARPA–E as stated 

is to reduce energy imports. 

So for that reason I would oppose this amendment. 

Anyone else wish to be recognized? 

If not, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. 

All opposed, no. The no’s have it. The amendment is not agreed to. 

The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 

the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Smith. Are you ready to proceed 

with your amendment? 

Mr. SMITH OF NEBRASKA. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment 015, amendment to the amendment in 

the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Smith of Nebraska. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his 

amendment. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEBRASKA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This 

amendment is intended to address an apparent inconsistency between the ARPA–E Governing Statute and the execution of the 

program. 

When the National Academy of Sciences recommended creating 

ARPA–E in 2005, it was very clear the program should be built 

upon certain foundational principles, specifically it should fund, 

‘‘out-of-the-box transformational energy research in those areas 

where industry by itself chooses not to undertake.’’ The statute establishing ARPA–E directs the program to pursue long-term development of energy technologies by accelerating technology advances 

in areas that industry by itself is not likely to undertake. 

In other words, ARPA–E is supposed to fund top-level, out-of-thebox ideas, not seeing investment by private industry. This language 

is very important because it provides direction and sets boundaries 

to ensure the work sponsored by ARPA–E does not duplicate existVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00591 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
586 

ing private investment reflecting the appropriate role of government. 

Unfortunately, in the first round of ARPA awards in August of 

’09, several of the projects funded appear to duplicate existing private-sector investment with federal funding. Clearly, if these 

projects are able to attract significant amounts of private investment, they are by definition outside the scope of ARPA–E. 

Further, involvement in technology areas where the private sector is already active risks putting the government in a position of 

picking winners and losers, potentially crowding out future investment by private capital. This amendment aims to address this 

problem by enhancing the principles set forth in the existing statute stating the program should avoid funding ideas that are already being pursued by private industry. It does so in three ways. 

First, it requires in applying for ARPA–E funding, applicants disclose the extent of current and prior efforts in the technology area 

for which funding is being requested. 

Second, it explicitly tasks the Director of ARPA–E with ensuring 

and making awards program managers adhere to the language and 

existing law, stating that the program should not fund technology 

areas already being pursued by industry. 

And third, requires the ARPA–E annual report to include a summary of the instances of and reasons for ARPA–E funding projects 

in areas already undertaken by industry. 

It is my hope these simple steps reinforce the original mandate 

of ARPA–E, providing funding for top-level research outside the 

scope of the private sector rather than duplicating existing private 

efforts. 

I thank the Chairman and yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Smith. As usual you have a 

sensible improvement to— 

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Dr. Baird. 

Mr. BAIRD. I was inclined to accept this because I think I understand what you are saying, Mr. Smith, but there is a premise that 

you said that I don’t support. If I heard it wrong, correct me, but 

it sounded like you were saying if there is any significant private 

investment in an area, then ARPA–E is not appropriate to that 

area. 

One of the strengths of ARPA–E, in fact, is that it is stimulating 

and leveraging private sector capital, and the way it works is, and 

I don’t know if you have talked to some of the entrepreneurs who 

are in this field, but I have talked to many, many, many, and what 

ARPA–E can do is help leverage some of the private sector capital, 

particularly on rather speculative explorations, which are kind of 

precisely what we want to have happen, and it would go like this. 

The potential cost of developing a breakthrough technology given 

the risks and expenditures and the reach that it may take to get 

there is sometimes prohibitive in a quick return, capital investment 

market. 

But ARPA–E comes along and says, we think there is potential 

here. You have got some great scientists, you have got a great idea, 

we are going to kick in some of the money to help make that happen, and if we deny that money, I think we are actually being very, 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
587 

very counterproductive. And my fear, Mr. Smith, is however well 

intended this may be, I think you are going to have huge unintended consequences, and I can’t support it for that reason. 

I would urge you to run this by some of the—you obviously don’t 

want to be saying, you know, pick your big energy company, they 

are spending a lot of money, we are just going to give them a little 

more money, but neither do you want to say that we are going to 

freeze out Venture Cap, for example, or even the big guys if they 

are working on some—I would be happy to yield some time to hear 

your thoughts on that. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEBRASKA. Sure. 

Chairman GORDON. And if I could, it is not a mandate. He is not 

requiring that if you have funds from elsewhere that you cannot 

get it. It is just it has to be disclosed, and that the, you know, the 

Director then will have to make some determination, and then I 

would say to Mr. Smith, this is not a situation where one company 

has been making investment, and then they say, okay, give me 

some more. 

By and large, what is happening is they may be going in a particular direction, and there will be a consortium that will come in, 

each bringing in different types of good ideas, as Mr. Baird says, 

then to scale it on out to something that can be beneficial. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEBRASKA. Right, but to be—to add emphasis, I 

guess. 

Chairman GORDON. Okay. Mr. Smith is recognized. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEBRASKA. Thank you. It does not preclude it, but 

it simply discloses and monitors it so that we can make sure that 

there is not a duplication or an unnecessary use of taxpayer dollars 

when private venture capital or other sources are more appropriate. 

Mr. BAIRD. I share that and I don’t know if I—somehow the time 

got lost from me there. I think I had some left, so let me reclaim 

what I had left. 

I just want to be real careful that we don’t take entrepreneurs 

who should be working in energy exploration and development and 

turn them into people who have to research how much capital is 

gone, because one could say—let us suppose I am working on an 

innovative technology to separate hydrogen and oxygen from water 

and then use it in a fuel cell for example. 

In the course of what should be trying to make the pitch for the 

energy potential of my application, I don’t want to make those people then turn into researchers, into prior investments, et cetera, et 

cetera. I want their focus to be on energy, not spending a lot of 

time saying, well, you know, BP did this, and Shell did this, and 

Solar World did this. I don’t know how to avoid that, but you see 

what I am trying to get at? Similarly, I don’t want ARPA–E, which 

is meant by its nature to be a nimble, quick operation, to say, well, 

we are going to have to go backwards and ask how much did BMW 

spend on hydrogen? 

What is your response, if I may, to that? 

Mr. SMITH OF NEBRASKA. Well, I mean, there is no specific prohibition. I mean, there is still the flexibility there that, as you have 

pointed out, is one of the benefits of ARPA–E and should continue 

to experience that. I mean, that is what we need. It is just that I 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
588 

don’t want these taxpayer dollars supplanting other private dollars 

that are more appropriately spent. 

Mr. BAIRD. I share that concern. And maybe this is yet to be resolved, and we don’t have to solve it here, but it would be one thing 

if I am working for a major company, and I know exactly what my 

particular company has spent on the investment up to now, and I 

just say the company I work for has already invested X amount of 

dollars. And then the Secretary can say, okay, I get it. We still 

think it is worthwhile. 

Is the gentleman suggesting, though, that that disclosure should 

be total private sector investment on the issue or just the particular entity for which you work? 

Mr. SMITH OF NEBRASKA. The particular entity or applicant, not 

other private— 

Mr. BAIRD. That is a helpful clarification. Ithink. I appreciate 

that and yield back. 

Chairman GORDON. Dr. Baird, I would say that Mr. Smith’s 

amendment is made in good faith and not intended to undermine 

anything that we would want, but I would also say that I would 

hope that we would accept it and continue to discuss it. More 

knowledge can come about between now and later, and I don’t 

know that it needs to be, but we ought to continue to discuss it. 

Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, and, again, I respectfully disagree with my good friend, Mr. Baird, that that is not—the purpose 

of you described it is not the purpose of ARPA–E. It is not to bolster private efforts. It is basically, and if I might read from the authorization of ARPA–E, it is, ‘‘accelerating transformational technological advances in areas that industry by itself is not likely to undertake because of technical and financial uncertainty.’’ 

And the fact is we are supposed to be taking—this—ARPA–E is 

supposed to go—and Mr. Smith has heard this over and over again, 

to finance those projects that private industry won’t finance because it is too risky, but we have accepted the fact that some of 

the experts at ARPA–E will determine, maybe these will have a potentially high payoff for the country, but they are too risky for private industry to finance. 

That is basically what we are talking about here, but we are 

evolving into a subsidizing of efforts that aren’t—don’t quite meet 

that threshold. 

Let me give you an example. 

Mr. BAIRD. Would the gentleman yield in a moment? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes, I will, in a moment. We have—I have 

three examples here of ARPA–E funding. It is phonetic devices received $1 million in capital, venture capital, before ARPA–E gave 

them an award. Flow—design industry received a major investment of $8 billion before ARPA–E gave them their grant. 

Sun Catalytics I guess it is, received $1 million in funding, venture funding, from the private sector prior to ARPA–E giving them 

their grant. It is—we have been sold on the idea that ARPA–E is 

necessary for companies that are involved in projects that cannot 

attract private-sector investment. 

So what we should be doing here is exactly what Mr. Smith is 

trying to achieve, and that is making sure that all of this is transVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00594 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
589 

parent so we can decide as in our oversight capacity, as to whether 

or not ARPA or any other organization is meeting the goals and the 

criteria that we have set out legislatively. 

And I would be happy to yield to my friend, Mr. Baird. 

Mr. BAIRD. My friend, I am afraid you put words into my mouth 

and then refuted the words that I didn’t say but you said on my 

behalf, and so I want to reclaim my own words. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. 

Mr. BAIRD. I think what you said is pretty much what I said. I 

don’t think I said the purpose of ARPA–E is to bolster private enterprise. I think what I said was there are certain high-risk activities that ARPA–E can contribute to that the private sector may decide financially that is not, on and of itself, a high enough probability of return, but it may have huge upside potential. We see the 

same in medications, et cetera. 

The other thing I want to just underscore, if I may, we run a— 

the nature of this industry is such that venture cap plays a critical 

role, and these entrepreneurs by necessity are going to pursue venture cap money and ARPA–E money simultaneously. We really are 

going to mess up the whole enterprise if we say, you can apply to 

ARPA–E, but the minute you get some venture cap, you are toast. 

Because you are going to actually implode the whole thing because 

ideally if you have got a good idea, you ought to be pursuing it in 

every way you can, and if we suddenly tell people, you know, if you 

get a dollar of venture cap, you are going to lose your ARPA–E or 

vice versa, I think we are creating a really bad model there. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Reclaiming my time to just say, we may not 

have a disagreement, but we both agree on transparency, and that 

is what this— 

Mr. BAIRD. One-hundred percent with the transparency argument. 

Chairman GORDON. Governor Garamendi. Okay. It looks like 

after we ran around the bush, we are all back together. So once 

again, thank you, Mr. Smith, for this amendment, and we will, 

again, we will continue to look at it and see if it needs any clarification, but it looks to me like you are going the right direction. 

So if there is no further discussion, the vote occurs on the 

amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. 

The amendment is agreed to. 

The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 

the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Olson. Are you ready to proceed 

with your amendment? 

Mr. OLSON. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman, 

and ask for its immediate consideration. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment 006, amendment to the amendment in 

the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Olson of Texas. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to offer 

this amendment. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
590 

This amendment seeks to do two things. First, in the ARPA–E 

title in regards to awards that the Director may initiate, it changes 

the word, ′′shall,′′ to ′′may.′′ As it stands the Director would have 

to make a variety of different awards, grants, contracts, cash 

prizes, and other transactions regardless of whether they are fitting topics or worthy applications. 

To me this is not a wise use of taxpayer funds and undermines 

the competitive nature of this endeavor in particular and this legislation in general. I think changing it to ‘‘may’’ will give the Director 

the flexibility to fund projects as he or she sees fit. 

And secondly, the original COMPETES language that was adopted three years ago stipulated that ARPA–E would hire no less than 

70 employees and no more than 120, and this was done intentionally to keep ARPA–E nimble and agile. The bill language before 

us today would eliminate that limitation, thereby allowing the staff 

of ARPA–E to be unlimited in number. 

Although subsequently amended, there was an attempt to allow 

ARPA–E to have its own legal counsel, procurement staff, and program directors instead of what existed in the Department of Energy. The manager’s amendment has kept the language on staffing 

in place but removed the specific references to particular staff. 

However, there is nothing to prevent report language from directing the Department of Energy that the intent of this language 

is for them to have separate staff in these positions. The intent of 

these changes is troubling, because although I was not here for the 

creation of ARPA–E, I understand it was not meant to be its own 

quasi department. Actions like unlimited hiring and having offices 

apart and aside from the Department of Energy certainly make it 

appear as if it is. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I urge adoption of the amendment 

and yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Olson, for this clarification. 

Is there any further discussion? 

Dr. Baird. 

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, a friendly suggestion on this. I have 

done some checking, and it is my understanding that if the gentleman’s language were to pass, he would effectively be requiring a 

doubling of the current staff of ARPA–E, thereby growing government. 

And the reason for that is the numbers specifically set both a 

floor and a ceiling, and ARPA–E does not yet achieve the floor, and 

so if you are insisting that the floor be achieved, you would actually 

be insisting that we hire new employees to meet the floor, at least 

that is my read of it, and I am not sure that is his intent. 

That would be the first point I would make. The second point is 

if you want to be quick and nimble and responsive, which ARPA– 

E has already distinguished itself as, you may have to actually 

have some of your own staff. We are not necessarily mandating 

that you do, but if, you know, as a business model if you want to 

create a branch of your business that is most effective, you are 

going to want to have some in-house resources and for us to here 

arbitrarily constrain ARPA–E, I appreciate the ceiling number, but 

I don’t think we should get into saying, well, you can hire this kind 

of person and that kind of person but not this other kind of person. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
591 

But, anyway, maybe staff can correct me, but my understanding 

is ARPA–E current staff is about 16. They are planning to go up 

to about 35, and they may start reaching the higher numbers later 

on, but would counsel tell us if this amendment as you read it require ARPA–E to go out and hire a bunch of people to comply with 

the amendment? Or is there a need to change it? 

Mr. COUNSEL. The amendment would reinsert language that was 

struck in the amendment in the nature of a substitute from the 

original ARPA–E statute that required 70 to 120 employees for 

ARPA–E. 

Mr. BAIRD. So if they have 35 now and he is now reinstating language that requires them to have 70, are we not effectively requiring them to have 70 potentially or run afoul of this legislation? 

Mr. COUNSEL. Yes. The original language that was struck in the 

ANS said the Director shall appoint not less than 70 and not more 

than 120 personnel under this section. The current staffing of fulltime employees at ARPA–E is 16, I believe, and the budget for next 

year calls for up to 35. 

Mr. BAIRD. I thank Counsel. In the interest of not growing government, I would have to oppose this. 

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. I will take my time, to clarify, Mr. Olson, 

this was not an effort to try to take the ceiling off and have a great 

bureaucracy. It was really an effort to not have a floor. We didn’t 

want to force them to have to have 70, and so I think we are all 

trying to accomplish, you know, the same thing. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. However, the ceiling has been eliminated as 

well as the floor. 

Chairman GORDON. So, again, and they are at 16, not wanting 

to go, you know, more than 35. So what I would suggest is that we 

can either have a vote or you might withdraw this. We will work 

a little later. Again, we were trying to get to the same place in 

that, I mean, you were trying to stop at the top, we were trying 

to force you for making them have more. 

Now, when they need them, they ought to have them, but that 

is not anytime soon. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, would you be going on record 

as then agreeing to reinstating the ceiling as this goes to the Floor? 

Chairman GORDON. You know, I would—I think that we would, 

but I would rather discuss it, and we can deal with it later. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would recommend to Mr. Olson to accept 

the Chairman’s very generous offer. 

Mr. OLSON. I appreciate the Chairman’s offer, Mr. Chairman, 

and I would be willing—much happily talk with you about keeping 

the ceiling and just eliminating the floor. If that is a concern, it 

sounds like there are 16 people there, we can all agree to it, but 

thank you very much for— 

Chairman GORDON. Yeah, and so we will work together to come 

up with something that is a compatible, but, again, the purpose of 

that was not at any time soon to force them to have to hire people. 

Mr. OLSON. I appreciate that, sir. Thank you. 

Chairman GORDON. Okay. Governor Garamendi. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. The amendment also deals with who can be 

hired. Is that correct? By suggesting that certain people could not 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
592 

be hired, for example, lawyers and the like. Is that part of the 

amendment? 

Mr. OLSON. That is not part of the amendment, sir. What the 

amendment does is it prevents them from hiring specific positions 

within ARPA, positions that are in the Department of Energy. And 

right now my concern is getting, you know, growing government 

here, getting duplicative personnel within the Department and at 

ARPA, when, again, there is not an authorization or— 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you for the response. If an organization 

is going to run, and I did run an organization in government like 

the Department of Interior’s Deputy Secretary, in various sections 

to have a staff that is directly responsible to the Administrator or 

the Director in this case, it is very important in terms of efficiency 

and effectiveness, and we ought to be able to—we ought to allow 

the Director of this ARPA–E to hire those people that are necessary to carry out the task. That may be a lawyer, it may be a 

financial wizard of one sort or another or a scientist of any type. 

By not allowing them to hire those kinds of people that may be 

in a completely different section and not readily available to 

ARPA–E, you may severely limit the effectiveness and the efficiency of ARPA–E. 

So I would suggest that that particular requirement that apparently is in your amendment not be there and that we allow the Director to hire those people necessary to carry out their task. 

Does that mean that the overall Department will increase? Not 

necessarily. There are hiring restrictions within the Department, 

authorizations for certain numbers of personnel within the Department, and it may be that that lawyer comes from the General 

Counsel’s office and works directly in ARPA–E with funding for 

that lawyer coming from ARPA–E. 

So I think that as we study this, Mr. Chairman, we ought not 

restrict the ability of the Director of ARPA–E to bring onboard 

using ARPA–E’s budget those people that are necessary for the efficient and effective management. 

Chairman GORDON. I think the gentleman has agreed to withdraw his amendment. I think that, again, the thrust here is that 

with some there is some concern about ARPA–E and some concern 

or mistrust from our standpoint that are comfortable with ARPA– 

E is we wanted to really show an abundance of confidence there. 

So why don’t we continue to work a little bit on this, and then 

we will try to come up with something that is good public policy 

and that we all feel comfortable with. 

Is that acceptable, Mr. Olson? 

Mr. OLSON. That is acceptable, Mr. Chairman, and just one clarification I would like to make. I mean, my amendment—it is not my 

intention to restrict the personnel that the ARPA Director could 

hire. My purpose is to not go out and start hiring specific new positions and creating new positions within ARPA. If the Director believes he needs an attorney, then he or she can hire an attorney, 

but I don’t want to create this bureaucracy and start putting out 

titles, which as we all know have an impact in the Federal Government. 

I mean, once you get—as you get the hierarchy up there, become 

SCS and those type positions, then things, all sorts of things would 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
593 

come into play. I want him to have his freedom. I appreciate the 

Chairman’s comments and look forward to working to make the 

clarifications that we have talked about here. 

Thank you. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you. We are getting ready to start 

several votes here. I have to meet somebody outside. Mr. Baird is 

going to help us get through two or three more amendments, and 

then with no objection we will convene again 1five minutes after 

the last vote. 

Chairman BAIRD. So Mr. Olson has withdrawn his amendment, 

and I thank you and hope to personally be a part of that discussion 

as well because I think your amendment is well intentioned, and 

we can hopefully work with you on that. 

The next amendment on the roster was the 37th amendment, but 

that has been withdrawn, so next—we will postpone consideration 

of Mr. Bartlett’s amendment, the 38th amendment, on the list. We 

now move to—Mrs. Biggert has an amendment. 

Chairman BAIRD. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 018, amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mrs. Biggert of Illinois. 

Chairman BAIRD. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the 

reading. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I Recognize the gentlelady for five minutes to explain the amendment. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment 

strikes a construction exception for the Energy Innovation Hubs. 

The mission of the Energy Innovation Hubs is that of timely and 

goal-oriented research that could turn on a dime, and we need 

these, and I support what the Secretary proposes to do with each 

hub. 

Unfortunately, the exception language here appears unlimited. I 

don’t know if you know what a test bed is or not, and I would ask 

you when I finish here, but in the absence of appropriations to support all the hubs, I believe we should be judicious in our attempts 

to facilitate their deployment. And anyone working with the Department could justify a renovation or construction need if it is, 

‘‘necessary for the research to be conducted.’’ 

So such exceptions could cause the hubs to become little national 

labs, totally undermining their mission and creating another drain 

on the funding, and so that is why I believe it is important at this 

juncture to include a basic prohibition on construction language. 

And I would like to add that I work with my colleague and caucus Co-Chairman Mr. Carnahan, to support a building technologies 

hub, and I can understand the need for possible renovations or 

small demo projects to conduct building technologies research. 

However, in the absence of further appropriations, we—I think we 

would be foolish to create such a broad exception for all of these 

hubs. 

I don’t know if the language is quite where I would like to see 

it, but I think that, you know, this—there is no definition of test 

beds in this legislation, and with that I would urge—in other 

words, there is the energy frontier research centers and the techVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00599 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
594 

nology hubs that I think are—there is some duplication with the 

labs, and so I think that this construction would be a bad idea. 

And I would yield. 

Chairman BAIRD. You want to yield or you want to yield back 

then? 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Yes. 

Chairman BAIRD. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Carnahan is recognized. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to compliment my colleague, Mrs. Biggert, for her work co-chairing the 

High-Performance Buildings Caucus with me and working on many 

of these issues together. I really appreciate her leadership, but I do 

reluctantly and respectfully oppose your amendment, and I just 

want to give a couple of reasons why. 

I think we sort of have the same goal with a different way to 

come about it, and that is this exception, which I think is important. First of all, we don’t want these hubs to become national labs. 

That is why there is a specific deadline. They are authorized for 

only up to five years in a competitive process and for them to be— 

and they would have to compete after that to continue. We want 

to get this technology out quickly with resources and with urgency 

and to get results. 

The other thing I think in terms of the exception for construction 

with advanced building efficiency, test beds, or to renovate existing 

buildings, there are specific limitations that could only be for the 

purposes of research and only if the Oversight Board determines 

that the test bed or renovations are limited in scope and scale necessary for the research to be conducted. 

So I think there are specific limitations in this to be sure that 

these don’t become national labs, and I guess the other examples 

I would say are say you are at a buildings hub and you want to 

construct a test bed or smaller-scaled building to test a design, 

without that section you would be limited from doing it. 

The other example I would say if we did include renovations to 

existing buildings for the purposes of research but there is an 

Oversight Board that will have to approve such requests, so I 

think, again, there are limitations included in the bill that address 

your concerns. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. CARNAHAN. I would be happy to. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. I think the issue that really troubles me is the 

test bed. I think that there could be any—asking for construction 

and just saying they are a test bed. I don’t know what a test bed 

is, and there is nothing in this bill that defines that. So— 

Mr. CARNAHAN. If the lady would yield, the Energy Policy Act of 

2005, has a specific definition when they established the Advanced 

Building Efficiency Test Bed Section. I would be happy to provide 

that. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Yeah. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. I think there is a definition. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Yes. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. I do have what the Act of 2005, says, but still the 

problem is that that was—we asked the Department of Energy to 

give us a definition and to give us what that was, and we have 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
595 

never heard back from them, and I was upset with that because 

to try to look at this language. But what we did find is that in— 

there was an Advanced Building Efficiency Test Bed Initiative 

dated October 6 through May of ’08, and in that it turned out that 

it really was an earmark. And so I have seen nothing—it looks like. 

I have seen nothing other than that earmark as being what is 

called a test bed, and I don’t know whether people are just—could 

use that based on that or—other than any definition that is in the 

2005, language, and I would really like to work with you, you 

know, to see if we could work out some limitation on that. I think 

that that opens the door to so many projects being called a test bed 

and asking for the funding, which in construction can eat up the 

whole, you know, the whole amount of money in a very short time. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Yeah. Reclaiming my time, I would be happy to 

work with the gentlelady in terms of that language just to be sure 

that we are limiting it as I think intended and that the funding 

is focused on research. 

I yield back. 

Chairman BAIRD. Mrs. Biggert, I share your concern, and I think 

my read of the Committee here is that I think everybody is on the 

same page here. I don’t think anybody wants money that should be 

going to hubs to become just some excuse to build a new building 

to be named after the former dean or something. And we have seen 

that. That happens and— 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Uh-huh. 

Chairman BAIRD. —then when earmarks get in there, then it 

gets named after us, and that is even more fun. But there is general support of the principle here. I wonder if you might be kind 

enough to withdraw that on the commitment that we will work to 

try to clarify some of the issues you mentioned because I think 

there is strong agreement with the principle. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. I would be happy to do that and withdraw the 

amendment. 

Chairman BAIRD. I respect and thank that, and Mr. Carnahan 

and the Committee will work. 

We are now down to five— 

Mr. BROUN. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BAIRD. Yes. 

Mr. BROUN. How about Members of Congress? Can we name bills 

after Members of Congress? 

Chairman BAIRD. Well, that is the exception. We will perfectly 

allow that. I hope that comes in the discussion. 

We are down to five minutes, my colleagues. Consistent with 

Chairman Gordon’s suggestion, we will recess until to five minutes 

after completion of the final vote of this series, and Ms. Johnson, 

my apologies, but we are not going to be able to do justice to your 

amendment in time. I don’t— 

Ms. JOHNSON. You know, you all need to stop meeting so much, 

because there are other committees that meet, too. 

Chairman BAIRD. The Committee stands in recess.[Whereupon, 

at 2:32 p.m. the Committee recessed, to reconvene at 4:00 p.m., the 

same day.] 

Chairman GORDON. Welcome back, everyone. Thank you for your 

patience. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
596 

The next amendment on the roster is the amendment offered by 

the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Johnson. Are you ready to proceed 

with your amendment? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the 

desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 113, amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice 

Johnson of Texas. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentlelady for five minutes to explain the amendment. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, 

and I would like to thank the persons who have worked to pull this 

language together. That includes Congressman Bobby Rush, Congressman G. K. Butterfield, Congressman Inglis, Congressman 

Luja ́n, and Congressman Gordon. The committee who worked together in a bipartisan fashion to perhaps strengthen, in their opinion, this language. I appreciate the time that many have spent 

here. When the Chair came to the Congressional Black Caucus I 

had to leave and go to the doctor about this voice that you hear, 

so I didn’t get a chance to hear all the discussion. 

But energy innovation hubs have the potential for transformative 

research that will yield breakthroughs in technology that can help 

meet our energy and climate challenges. This research will ultimately yield new technologies which will create new jobs for American families. 

To ensure diversity within the hubs, my amendment calls for priority consideration with HBCUs [Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities], 1890 Land Grant Institutions, Hispanic Serving Institutions, PBIs [Public Benevolent Institutions], and Tribal Colleges. Together these are hundreds of universities which represent 

our Nation, and let me say, too, that this amendment in no way 

will affect, determine, or change the location of these hubs. 

These universities maintain unique relationships with communities of color, and we should implement their ability to educate 

these communities on the opportunities in green industry and the 

techniques needed to succeed to a larger energy strategy. And I 

know that everybody gets tired of me bringing this kind of thing 

up, but I want to say that we can’t simply walk away and not let 

a population this large not have an opportunity to be on course for 

the future. 

The development of green energy Centers of Excellence at minority-serving institutions to research and develop new green technologies, as well as train implementers in the deployment of green 

innovation is more towards parity in a growing clean energy economy. Historically, most HBCUs and other minority-serving institutions do not have the same endowments, funding, grant-writing capabilities, and luxuries other universities have. 

Despite these challenges, however, statistics show that HBCUs 

have managed to graduate students in stem fields at a higher rate 

than most traditional universities. The bill up for consideration 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
597 

today focuses on particular weaknesses in our national scientific 

enterprise. I, and many of my colleagues from the Congressional 

Black Caucus, Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and the Diversity 

and Innovation Caucus and others, believe this amendment will 

strengthen the intent of the legislation. 

We have seen the statistics showing minorities are falling behind 

the rest of the pack in the sciences for many reasons. I ask my colleagues on this committee to support this amendment that would 

increase the diversity in our growing clean energy economy. I in no 

way am asking that there be any special preparations. Everyone 

should be able to compete at that level but should be given an opportunity, and this is really for our Nation because we are far behind. 

This is America COMPETES, and it must include all Americans, 

and I appreciate any support that I can get. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. 

I would like to thank my good friends and colleagues Representative Bobby Rush 

and Representative G.K. Butterfield for their hard work on this language, which 

was included in the House passed version of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. 

I would like to thank Congressman Inglis, Congressman Luja ́n and other Members on this committee who have worked together in a bi-partisan fashion to 

strengthen this language. 

Energy innovation HUBS have the potential for transformative research that will 

yield breakthroughs in technology that can help us meet our energy and climate 

challenges. This research will ultimately yield new technologies, which will create 

new jobs for American families. 

To ensure diversity within HUBS, my amendment calls for priority consideration 

with HBCU’s, 1890 Land Grant Institutions, HSI’s, PBI’s and Tribal Colleges. Together, these are hundreds of Universities which represent every corner of our Nation. 

These universities maintain unique relationships with communities of color. 

We should implement their ability to educate these communities on the opportunities in green industries and the techniques needed to succeed in to a larger energy 

strategy. 

The development of Green Energy Centers of Excellence at Minority Serving Institutions to research and develop new green technologies as well as train implementers in the deployment of green innovation is a move towards parity in a growing 

clean energy economy. 

Historically, most HBCU’s and other minority serving institutions do not have the 

same endowments, funding, grant—writing capabilities, and luxuries other universities have. Despite these challenges, statistics show HBCU’s have managed to graduate students in STEM fields at a higher rate than most traditional universities. 

The bill up for consideration today focuses on particular weaknesses in our national scientific enterprise. I and many of my Colleagues from the Congressional 

Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Diversity and Innovation 

Caucus and many others believe this amendment will strengthen the intent of this 

legislation. 

We have seen the statistics showing minorities are falling behind the rest of the 

pack in the sciences for many reasons. 

I ask my colleagues on this committee to support this amendment to increase the 

diversity in our growing clean energy economy. 

Energy innovation hubs have the potential for transformative research that will 

yield breakthroughs in technology that can help us meet our energy and climate 

challenges. This research will ultimately yield new technologies, which will create 

new jobs for American families. 

This is America COMPETES, and it must include all Americans. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. I yield back the remainder of my time. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
598 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. You have been a 

champion here, and you are correct. This is an amendment for all 

Americans. We are all going to be better off. 

Anyone else wish to comment? If not then, there is no further 

discussion. 

Oh, Mr. Hall is recognized. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, at committee this amendment, the 

amendment in the bill referred to consideration as special consideration, and it is used that way in two other parts of the bill, and 

it says priority consideration. I am not sure what the difference is 

in it, but it seems like they ought to either all be priority, they 

ought to all be special, and it ought to have it said what priority 

means. 

Chairman GORDON. If the gentleman would yield, I think the 

basis of this is that we are bringing bills or this bill is a culmination of coming from three different subcommittees, but I will yield 

to the counsel to address those definitions. 

Ms. COUNSEL. We are aware of the term, ‘‘special consideration,’’ 

appearing in the U.S. Code something like 130 times. The term, 

‘‘priority consideration,’’ appears in the U.S. Code something like 

60 times. We are unaware of any place in the U.S. Code where either term is defined, so that is where we are at. 

Mr. HALL. What—would an amendment be in—it seems to me in 

this particular bill it is mentioned ‘‘special’’ two other times and 

then another area it mentioned ‘‘priority.’’ It looks like they ought 

to be the same, and they really ought to be defined. 

Ms. COUNSEL. I can’t speak to the use of the term in this amendment versus other amendments, but in both cases I think there is 

an implication that there would be some level of additional consideration. What that might mean in terms of priority versus special 

it probably would be at the discretion of the Secretary. 

Chairman GORDON. If the gentleman would yield, I think, you 

know, you raise a good concern about consistency. Why don’t we try 

to work on it between now and going to the Floor and see if those 

folks that had a particular interest—most of this is the language 

that came out of their amendments, and we will see if we can’t 

come up with some common term. 

Mr. BROUN. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Oh. Dr. Broun. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to further 

ask the Counsel, if I may, could this be interpreted as particular 

discrimination for these minorities in selecting the—in selection of 

anything else? Is this specific preference given to these individuals 

where preference is given? 

Chairman GORDON. This is more of a legislative question than a 

counsel question, and I think really you have a situation where 

there are mandates and then there is something less than that. 

This is certainly not a mandate, a requirement, a quota, or anything of that nature, so it would be less than. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In fact, I was—that was 

what I was getting at is this— 

Chairman GORDON. Yeah. 

Mr. BROUN. —a mandate that we— 

Chairman GORDON. No. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
599 

Mr. BROUN. —give preference to these groups of people, because 

I don’t believe in discrimination for or against anybody. I think we 

ought to have equal opportunity for everyone, and we ought to be 

all treated equal under the law, and that is—I appreciate the 

Chairman and I appreciate Counsel’s—and I hope we can define 

this, Mr. Chairman, as we go forward. 

Thank you, sir. 

Chairman GORDON. Ms. Johnson is recognized. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you for that question. In my mind in clarification it is to sensitize but offer no special preparation. They have 

to be the same as everyone else but to remember to be inclusive. 

That is all that— 

Mr. BROUN. Would the gentlelady yield? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, and I agree with you wholeheartedly. We 

ought to all have the same opportunities, no matter what our color 

of the skin is, no matter what gender we are, no matter whatever 

kind of inherent quality we are given by our creator. I agree. We 

all ought to have equal opportunity, and I agree with the 

gentlelady. Thank you. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Will the gentlelady yield? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you. My question is just—we talked a lot 

about special consideration. Would priority be higher than that or 

lower? 

Ms. JOHNSON. You know, I wasn’t there when they were talking 

about this in the Committee. To be honest with you, I don’t think 

it makes much difference. It probably made two or three Members 

of the Congressional Black Caucus feel better, but it is—I don’t 

think it makes— 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Okay. 

Ms. JOHNSON. —that much difference. 

Chairman GORDON. If the gentlelady would yield. That is our impression in that as the gentlelady, Ms. Johnson, said, it is the level 

of sensitivity, but it is not a mandate, and my feeling is that it 

really isn’t a distinction. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Okay. Thank you. 

Chairman GORDON. So if there is no further discussion, the vote 

occurs on Ms. Johnson’s amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. 

The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 

the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall. Are you ready to proceed with 

your amendment? 

Mr. HALL. I think I am. I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment 022, time stamped April 26, 2010, 11:59 

a.m., amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute 

to H.R. 5116 offered by Mr. Hall of Texas. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
600 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment would 

add R&D on conventional energy sources to the list of eligible activities that energy innovation hubs can pursue. And when it comes 

to energy policy, ‘‘energy independence,’’ is a lofty but common goal 

that both parties generally agree should be a top priority. 

In order to reduce imports of foreign energy and achieve true energy independence, we need to do two things; one, reduce demand 

by advancing energy efficiency and alternative sources, and two, increase supply and production of our domestic energy resources. 

Unfortunately and increasingly, we seem to be forgetting the 

supply side of this equation. The Energy Innovation Hubs Program 

authorizes and Title XI of this bill does not authorize R&D on, ‘‘advanced energy technology,’’ but then limits the definition of these 

technologies to those that advance energy efficiency and certain alternative energy sources. 

If we truly are serious about energy independence, it doesn’t 

make sense to exclude R&D on fossil fuels that could increase domestic energy supplies and production and reduce foreign imports. 

A little bit of federal investment in this area could go a long way. 

We have seen the first hand ever—over the last decade we have 

seen this with the explosion of domestic energy production enabled 

by advances in ultra-deep drilling technology. We passed—this 

committee passed some 3-1/2 years ago, and it has been working 

up to now. We should not exclude this type of energy from research 

from the program, and so any amendment, especially this amendment, simply builds on the—all of the above approach to energy 

independence by adding technologies with the potential to enhance 

domestic energy supply and production, including those relating to 

coal, oil, and natural gas to the list of eligible activities under this 

program. 

And I yield back my time. 

Chairman GORDON. Governor Garamendi. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. If I 

might, my recollection is that there is an extraordinarily large 

amount of money that is going into the coal and oil research already from a different organization, different part of the Department of Energy. To you, Mr. Chairman, or perhaps Mr. Hall, is 

that the case, and if so, how much and instead of taking this limited source of money and using it for what is already being done 

in other parts of the Department of Energy? 

Mr. HALL. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Yes. 

Mr. HALL. It is my understanding and maybe I am wrong, that 

they are cutting fossil fuels that I am referring to here and a lot 

of it from R&D. Isn’t that your understanding? 

Chairman GORDON. My understanding is there is a lot of money 

for carbon capture and sequestration in the coal area, but in terms 

of natural gas, we are seeing a lot of new reserves that have come 

about, we are finding out that there is a lot of natural gas that 

could be under the tundra, under the ocean. There are concerns 

about some of the processes of getting natural gas out. So I think 

that as a transition fuel that I don’t think there is that kind of research going in natural gas. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
601 

In CCS [Carbon Capture and Sequestration] there is a lot of 

money, and once again, this is not a mandate. This in essence allows the Secretary if there is a good idea that comes down the pike 

in these fields, to be able to accept them. 

Mr. HALL. Would the Chairman yield? 

Chairman GORDON. It is Governor Garamendi’s— 

Mr. HALL. Governor, would you yield? 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Yes. 

Mr. HALL. We just add these to where they won’t cut it out, 

where they won’t—leave it where it is considered this, too, is added 

to the list that they could consider. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, I will just close on this and just state my 

concern here is that the oil and coal industry have been very successful in capturing national subsidies, tax subsidies and other 

kinds of subsidies to advance their interests. My personal interest 

is to advance the other technologies. The point about natural gas 

was well made by the Chairman. My concern would be that the oil 

and coal industry might use this language to grab this piece of 

money, which I believe, at least for me, is intended for other technologies, other kinds of fuel sources. 

So I will let it go at that. 

Chairman GORDON. Well, I would just say if the governor would 

yield, it really won’t be up to the companies. It will be up to the 

Secretary, and the Secretary might want to spend some money on 

how you might make this cleaner type of exploration. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Chairman GORDON. So if there is no further discussion, the vote 

occurs on the amendment. All in favor of the amendment, say aye. 

Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. 

The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 

the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Peters. Are you ready to proceed 

with your amendment? 

Mr. PETERS. I am, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the 

desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment 033, amendment to the amendment in 

the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Peters of Michigan. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain the amendment. 

Mr. PETERS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. The legislation we 

are considering today will create new energy innovation hubs that 

will spur advancements in the growth in the field of advanced energy technologies. These hubs will encourage and support new 

partnerships in regions that conduct multi-disciplinary research 

and work collaboratively towards the commercialization of new energy technologies, and I applaud the Committee for including this 

important new initiative in the COMPETES Act. 

As we work to find solutions that will put our Nation on a course 

towards energy independence, it is important that we acknowledge 

the role our transportation sector is going to play in this, and that 

is why I am offering an amendment that will include technologies 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
602 

that relate to advanced vehicle and vehicle components to the definition of advanced energy technologies supported under this section. 

This simple amendment assures that we support the development of new vehicle technologies that result in energy savings 

within these newly-created energy hubs, and this will include innovations in drive train technologies, hydrogen, fuel cells, or improvements to internal combustion engines. 

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Representative Inglis for his work on this issue and for his work helping on 

this amendment, and I also would like to thank him for his support 

in working to develop new advanced technologies. 

I think we all agree that having a vibrant transportation sector 

is vital to our national economy and would urge all my colleagues 

to adopt this amendment. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman GORDON. Is there further discussion on the amendment? 

Mr. INGLIS. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Inglis. 

Mr. INGLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Peters, for your shared interest in improving vehicle technologies. 

This is a good amendment and one that will make it clear that we 

want to improve the vehicle technologies so that we can some day 

be free of Middle Eastern oil. 

And so it is also a tremendous opportunity for our economy. Not 

only is it a National security risk, but there is an opportunity for 

job creation, especially in places like the fourth district of South 

Carolina, where the International Center for Automotive Research 

is stretching the boundaries of advanced technology research 

through a unique partnership between industry, academia, and the 

government. And so the energy innovation hubs present a similar 

opportunity to leverage this kind of—these kind of efforts to solve 

the key problems in transportation, including vehicles and vehicle 

components, alternative fuels, and related technologies that truly 

can transform the industry and reignite U.S. leadership in this 

field. 

So I think this is a very strong amendment, and I encourage my 

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

Chairman GORDON. Dr. Baird is recognized. 

Mr. BAIRD. Yes. I just want to do two things; commend my colleagues for what I think is a very constructive amendment and also 

compliment my friend and Ranking Member who earlier I mentioned that Dr. Lipinski finished second. I believe Mr. Inglis finished fourth in today’s race. So, Mr. Chairman, we have got good 

people. Of course, we always follow in your footsteps when you are 

in a race, but in your absence, we are doing well on this committee 

on a bipartisan basis. 

Chairman GORDON. Is there further discussion? 

Mr. BROUN. Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Dr. Broun. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to congratulate 

Mr. Peters for this amendment. We have in my district at Brownsville Georgia and Road Atlanta we have got a company that is 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
603 

doing advanced vehicle technology. They are utilizing racecars in 

trying to develop these technologies. It is absolutely critical that we 

go forward with this type of thing, and I want to add my very enthusiastic support for this amendment, and I congratulate for you 

bringing it. 

And so, Mr. Chairman, I agree and like it. I yield back. 

Chairman GORDON. We are glad to have you with us. 

Is there further discussion on the amendment? If not, the vote 

occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Those opposed, no. 

The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. 

The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 

the gentlelady from Illinois, Mrs. Biggert. Are you ready to proceed 

with your amendment? 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Yes. I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment 100, amendment to the amendment in 

the nature of a substitute offered by Mrs. Biggert of Illinois. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentlelady for five minutes to explain the amendment. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment is 

straightforward. It simply clarifies that federally-funded research 

and development centers are eligible to compete for the energy innovation hubs. 

I believe it is important that our labs are eligible to compete for 

the hubs, and more importantly, I believe it is essential to the hubs 

to utilize existing resources within the DOE complex, the modeling 

and simulation hub or the battery hub, for example, as well as 

there is work on the automotive that Mr. Peters’ amendment, 

which could qualify using the labs and could—and I think that this 

would—very quickly we would be able to address these issues and 

when we would have the lab participation and existing facilities 

that won’t have to be built or moved to another location to do this. 

So I would thank your consideration and yield back. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mrs. Biggert, you are correct 

that the labs are an outstanding resource for our country, and they 

certainly need to be utilized. 

If there is no further discussion, then the vote occurs on the 

gentlelady’s amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The 

ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. 

The next amendment on the roster is offered by the gentleman 

from New Mexico, Mr. Luja ́n. Are you ready to proceed with your 

amendment? 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the 

desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment 048, amendment to the amendment in 

the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Luja ́n of New Mexico. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. 

Without objection, so ordered. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
604 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to introduce 

this amendment that I believe will support and spur innovation, 

support small business, and create jobs. Enhanced innovation and 

improved competitiveness will require non-federal entities, U.S. industry, and small businesses to work in partnership with federal 

R&D entities such as the DOE national labs. 

Cooperative arrangements between public and private entities 

are an important mechanism for innovation and competitiveness. 

Every year across the many DOE national laboratories, there are 

many potential cooperative work agreements that go unrealized because the non-federal partner, often a small business, does not 

have the means for both the federal portion and their own portion 

of the work. 

CRADAs [Cooperative Research and Development Agreements] 

are cooperative work agreements between a national lab and a nonfederal entity. They are a mechanism by which basic science capabilities or technology that has been developed at a national laboratory can be matured in cooperation with a non-federal entity. Often 

these are initiated by a small business that sees a capability at a 

national lab that the small business believes can be turned into a 

marketable technology. 

By statute, a CRADA must be consistent with the laboratory’s 

mission. Both parties may contribute personnel, services, and property to the CRADA project, and the partner can provide funding for 

the laboratory’s research. 

However, the DOE laboratory cannot provide funding to the partner. To encourage DOE’s laboratories to enter into technology partnerships, Congress began providing support specifically designated 

for federal portions of CRADAs in fiscal year 1991. However, in fiscal year 1996, Congress began to phase out these dedicated funds, 

relying instead on program managers at the laboratories to use 

their regular research funds for CRADAs. As a result, the number 

of CRADAs dropped dramatically as the dedicated federal funding 

declined. 

Using data from the 2006 Technology Report from DOE, the 

number of CRADAs dropped from nearly 1,600 in 1996, when dedicated federal funding was at its peak, to about 600 in 2001, when 

dedicated federal funding was eliminated. This is a drop of nearly 

two thirds, demonstrating that other funding mechanisms, which 

have other priorities and demands, do not adequately support the 

full potential of CRADA work with the industry. 

Currently there are no funds dedicated to pay for the national 

lab’s portion of CRADAs, and an April 2010, a report from the Energy Technology Innovation Policy Research Group at Harvard 

stated that CRADAs and cooperative agreements involve closer coordination between parties than grants that work for other agreements. This is important for energy innovation because as they 

stated, public, private partnerships increased the funding available 

to projects, add expertise and other resources, and help bring technology into use. 

This means that in most cases the small businesses will need to 

pay 100 percent of the cost, both their own as well as the cost to 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
605 

the national lab. The national lab cost represents a large financial 

barrier, especially given the risk of not knowing whether the matured capability will be successfully marketable. 

Many potential CRADAs never materialize because the financial 

risk is too great, and in 2002, a GAO report stated that managers 

at DOE laboratories most frequently cited the lack of dedicated 

funding for technology partnerships, including funding targeted to 

small businesses as the most important barrier to their technology 

transfer activities. 

Moreover, they reported that managers at eight of 12 DOE laboratories we surveyed cited a lack of dedicated DOE funding for 

CRADAs as an important barrier that has constrained technology 

partnerships at their laboratories. 

In developing this amendment we worked with committee staff 

and send draft language to DOE for technical comments. A number 

of their suggestions were included in this amendment. The language ensures that small businesses will be given special consideration in deciding which CRADAs will receive funds. We also authorized such sums as the Administration deems necessary rather 

than authorizing a specific sum. 

This language does not prejudge the analysis of the new DOE 

Technology Transfer Coordinator, who is currently undertaking 

this endeavor to understand the resources necessary to optimize 

technology transfer and cooperative research efforts. 

To summarize, this amendment will enhance the cooperative 

agreements between DOE national labs and small businesses, and 

in doing so will spur innovation, support small businesses, and create jobs. 

I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment, and 

I thank you for your consideration. I yield back my time. 

Chairman GORDON. Mrs. Biggert, I think you have a secondary 

amendment. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Yes. 

Chairman GORDON. Well, before you do that I think Mr. 

Garamendi wanted to speak to it. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. 

Luja ́n, this is an extremely important aspect of what needs to be 

done. Our national labs are an extraordinary resource, and incredible technology potential exists at those labs. This is a tool that 

could be used by the Lab Directors and the Secretary in moving 

that technology, that innovation out of the labs. 

I am working on an additional program with Mr. Luja ́n that 

would allow the national labs to set up, adjacent to the laboratories, space that could be used in cooperative arrangements. Not 

funded directly by the labs but in these kinds of partnerships, some 

of which could be these CRADA Programs. That is an issue for another day that will be taken up in a separate piece of legislation. 

But those facilities adjacent to the labs would provide the location for perhaps some programs that would be created under this 

amendment. 

I support the amendment. I yield back my time. 

Chairman GORDON. If there is no further discussion on the 

amendment, then I yield to Mrs. Biggert for a secondary amendment, and the clerk will report the amendment. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
606 

The CLERK. Amendment 103, amendment offered by Mrs. Biggert 

of Illinois to the amendment offered by Mr. Luja ́n of New Mexico. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentlelady for five minutes to explain her amendment. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support the Luja ́n 

amendment. I think that it will enhance the cooperative agreements between DOE national labs and small businesses and in 

doing so will help spur innovation, support small businesses, and 

create jobs. 

But my amendment would prohibit the funding from the Office 

of Science from being used to pay for the federal share of cooperative research development agreements, and I certainly appreciate 

the concept behind Mr. Luja ́n’s amendment. Funding for these 

agreements certainly has diminished substantially in recent years, 

deterring labs from utilizing relationships with industry. I would 

like to see this change like Mr. Luja ́n, but I think that it could use 

a little bit more work. 

Specifically, I would like to see more emphasis on the research 

projects spread across all programs within DOE and perhaps we 

should include some oversight. I don’t think that there is much in 

there, and then—and direction through the Tech Transfer Coordinator at DOE and not have the funding just come out of science 

but really through the programs and projects that are established 

within the Department of Energy. 

And I hope that the gentleman would work with me to improve 

this provision of the bill and would yield back. 

Chairman GORDON. And Mr. Luja ́n, what is your opinion? 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I appreciate as well Mrs. Biggert’s support for our national laboratories 

and the need for innovation, and I appreciate very much this 

amendment which I am not opposed to. I would be willing to work 

with Mrs. Biggert. 

When we look at the section of the United States Code where cooperative research and development agreements were outlined and 

created, there is some enumerated authority that I think we could 

look to, Mr. Chairman, if there is further clarification that is needed. I think that it works well the way that it is, and I also want 

to make sure that as we look to the funding that goes to the Office 

of Science, that we are able to target that, to do exactly that work. 

But on the other side we should work in a way where we can 

help accelerate the movement of the commercialization of this technology and the transfer of it so we can help get that out there and 

make sure that we look to strengthen these partnerships, which 

were strong in the 1990. They did well. There was a lot of positive 

work, but we need to make sure that they are strengthened yet 

again. 

So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. So as I understand it you are supporting this 

amendment, and if there needs to be some massaging, that you will 

work together as you go forward. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
607 

So if there is no further discussion, the vote is on the Biggert secondary amendment. Those in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The 

amendment passes. 

Now the vote is on Mr. Luja ́n’s amendment. All in favor say, aye. 

Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. 

The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 

the gentleman from Maryland, Dr. Bartlett. Are you ready to proceed with your amendment? 

Mr. BARTLETT. I am, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the 

desk. 

Chairman GORDON. I have—the clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment 022, amendment to the amendment in 

the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Bartlett of Maryland. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. 

And without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. BARTLETT. This amendment, sir, is really a sense of the Congress. It very simply reaffirms that the purpose of COMPETES is 

the intent by the Congress to implement the top ten actions in priority order of the National Academy of Science’s 2005 Report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm. This amendment states that these 

top ten actions remain critical to maintaining long-term U.S. economic competitiveness and accordingly shall receive funding priority. 

As a reminder, the Gathering Storm Report was very specific in 

its recommendations, focusing primarily in two areas of research 

and stem education. 

Recommendation A, increase America’s talent pool by vastly improving K through 12 science and mathematics education, and B, 

recommendation B, sustain and strengthen the Nation’s traditional 

commitment to long-term basic research that has the potential to 

be transformational, to maintain the flow of new ideas that fuel the 

economy, provide security, and enhance the quality of life. 

Most of the funding increases that we called for in the original 

COMPETES Act have not yet materialized. The sense of the Congress amendment supports efforts to redouble efforts to see COMPETES’ original prioritized recommendations realized. 

And I thank you and yield back. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Bartlett, for a good amendment. 

If there is no further discussion, those in favor of the amendment, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is 

passed. 

The next amendment on the roster is the amendment offered by 

the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Broun. Are you ready to proceed 

with your amendment? 

Mr. BROUN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the 

desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment 023, amendment to the amendment in 

the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
608 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The amendment would 

maintain consistency throughout many federal programs by prohibiting any funds authorized by this COMPETES authorization to be 

used by—to be used for any lobbying activities to influence in any 

manner a member of Congress, a jurisdiction, or an official of any 

government. 

We do not want any recipient of appropriated funds by this reauthorization to use these funds in any way that is not consistent 

with the stated intent of any specified program. Failure to adopt 

this explicit lobbying prohibition could open up a Pandora’s box of 

improper influence towards government officials with the very 

funds the government has appropriated to them. 

This amendment is simply a good government effort, and I urge 

the Committee to support this amendment. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Dr. Broun. I certainly agree with 

the intent of your motion and will support it. 

I want to put one caveat. Again, there may need to be some 

tweaking later on. I want to be sure that if Mrs. Biggert were to 

go by the Argonne National Lab and ask for some advice or ask 

about this or that, that there wouldn’t be a problem about them, 

you know, responding to her. 

But certainly the spirit of where you are going is where we all 

want to be. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BROUN. Certainly, Mr. Chairman— 

Chairman GORDON. Governor, you are recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Following on what you just opened up the conversation, Mr. Chairman, some of this money is going to be used 

in a variety of ways, from grants to loans to loan guarantees to research going on at universities and hubs. I mean, it covers pretty 

much an encyclopedia of projects and research. 

It appears as though this language would prevent communication 

to us about what they are doing. If that is the case, this shouldn’t 

be done. We should not pass this amendment. We need to know 

what they are up to. They need to be able to communicate to us 

what they are doing. We just went through the automobile issue 

here a moment ago. What are those research facilities doing? If 

they send us an annual report, that is an expenditure of money 

that could be deemed to be influencing us about the merits of that 

particular project. 

Now, with regard to federal employees and federal agencies, 

there are many laws already in place that prohibit the federal 

agencies from using their money to lobby us. I remember one of my 

colleagues getting in deep trouble in the ’90s about that. So I am 

concerned about this, and the way it is written lobbying and influencing and informing and blah, blah, blah, blah, I don’t think we 

want to do this. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
609 

I yield back. 

Chairman GORDON. I think that this is a somewhat standard 

concept in a variety of parts of legislation, but then, again, I think 

we just need to make sure that this is consistent with what is 

going on elsewhere and doesn’t run into those problems that you 

mentioned in terms of, again, the advice that we might want to get. 

Dr. Baird, you are recognized. 

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Two things. One, I very 

much associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Garamendi. You 

know, if you, as many of my colleagues do as well, follow the business literature, in business there is great concern about top-down 

management, about a structure that says the guys on the bottom, 

so to speak, can see something happening, but they can’t talk to 

the top. 

Well, it is one thing to lobby in the sense of self-interest, like I 

want you to give more money to me because I want more money 

for me. 

But it is quite another thing to lobby in the interest of the people 

that are public employees and others that serve just as we serve. 

If you see a better way to do something, I think you ought to be 

able to tell Members of Congress that without running afoul and 

possibly facing criminal prosecution. 

So on the premise I have a real problem with overly restrictive 

restriction on this. I mean, it creates—I think it really creates a 

bind on behalf of well-intentioned public employees who say, I actually think we can do this better, but have no way of legally of telling a Member of Congress that without running risk of this. 

Now, the second point I would make is, as Mr. Garamendi correctly pointed out, there are existing laws 18 USC, Section 1913, 

actually encompasses, verbatim as far as I can tell, the language 

of Mr. Broun’s amendment up to a point. And then Mr. Broun’s 

amendment leaves out certain language, and I am going to—I will 

read the language that it leaves out, and the language it leaves out 

is substantive. 

So if you stop in Mr. Broun’s amendment, the actual, original 

statute reads, ‘‘but this shall not prevent officers or employees of 

the United States or its departments or agencies from communicating to any such Member or official, at his request, or to Congress or such official, through the proper official channels, requests 

for any legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriations which 

they deem necessary for the efficient conduct of the public business, or for making any communication whose prohibition by this 

section might, in the opinion of the Attorney General, violate the 

Constitution or interfere with the conduct of foreign policy, counterintelligence, intelligence, national security activities, et cetera.’’ 

Now, the question for me is, if we have that law on the books, 

why is that not included? And maybe it is just an oversight, but 

that protection of well-intended public officials speaking out in the 

best interest of the public ought to be in there. That is the existing 

generic law, and I am puzzled as to why it is not—and Mr. Broun, 

I would be happy to yield for—to Mr. Broun for an explanation if 

you can offer one. 

Chairman GORDON. Maybe I could suggest, if you don’t mind, Mr. 

Broun, why don’t we defer this and let us try—as I say, I think no 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
610 

one will disagree with your intention, but I think if there is some 

established language that you might be better off using that wellestablished language. So if you don’t mind, this can be discussed 

a little bit longer, and we will try to deal with it when we go to 

the Floor. 

Mr. BROUN. Well, Mr. Chairman— 

Chairman GORDON. But, I mean, if you have a different opinion, 

that is perfectly line. 

Mr. BROUN. Will you yield? 

Chairman GORDON. Certainly. 

Mr. BROUN. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you 

yielding. 

The intent is—let me explain the intent in Section 24, Subsection 

B, duties of the Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship. I am 

reading from the bill. ‘‘Shall be responsible for,’’—paragraph one. It 

says, ′′developing and advocating policies.′′ 

In the amendment there is a very clear definition put in place 

in this amendment, and I will be glad to read it. You can look at 

it right there in the—in Subsection—in Section B, Subsection B of 

Section 701, prohibiting lobbying, and the amendment very clearly 

defines what we are trying to do, and it is—I would love to work 

with the Chairman, I would love to work with anyone else on the 

other side, because I think that your concerns about communication and things like that and suggestions of better ways to do 

things, certainly I am in favor of those. 

But I just—I think we have a clear-cut definition of lobbying, and 

Mr. Chairman, if you all would accept the amendment, let us pass 

it, then I would be glad to work with the other side to do what we 

can— 

Mr. WU. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. BROUN. Certainly, Dr. Wu. 

Mr. WU. Mr. Broun, if I may, just cutting to the chase of the 

statutory language which Mr. Baird cited, the most important exemption there is that the prior statutory language of that other 

provision allows us as Members of Congress to ask a question of 

Executive Branch officials and permits them to answer the question as asked. And that exemption is missing in your proposed 

amendment, and I think that that is a very, very important exemption. 

When we ask questions, folks in the agencies, to the extent that 

they are permitted by their higher ups, if you will, within the Executive Branch, ought to be able to answer those questions without 

fear of a statutory provision. I think that is very, very important. 

I would be happy to yield back. 

Mr. BROUN. Well, thank you, sir. I appreciate it, Mr. Wu, and I 

agree. We—I want to ask questions, and we have to hold them accountable, and they should answer the question, and I would be 

glad to add clarifying language as we proceed forward. Hopefully 

we will accept this amendment and get the clarifying language in 

the final report. 

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I would not be inclined to accept the 

language as is. I might be willing to accept it if we offered the remainder of the statute, US—18 USC Section 1913, as a secondary 

amendment. Under that case I would, but I think there are huge 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
611 

unintended consequences to the amendment as written, and I 

couldn’t support it without a secondary amendment. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Grayson hasn’t had a chance to speak. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The first amendment 

gives every American the right to petition the government to address his grievances, and I am concerned that this amendment to 

this bill as written denies Americans that right. 

I want to point out that in the language circulated by Dr. Baird, 

the specific recognition of the fact that we can’t restrict speech. 

That would violate the Constitution. We can’t restrict speech in a 

manner that would violate the Constitution. I see nothing in the 

Broun amendment that respects that very fundamental principle, 

and I am concerned that the Broun amendment as written is unconstitutional. 

I yield the remainder of my time. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Diaz-Balart. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Actually, if I can 

address my question to Mr. Broun. 

Mr. Broun, I just want to make sure that I have been hearing 

the same thing that everybody else has. You said that you are willing to make sure that your amendment is corrected through the 

process to make sure that all those issues are resolved with. Is that 

correct? 

Mr. BROUN. That is correct. Yes. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. All right. Mr. Chairman, with that, I mean, we 

do this all the time in this process, and you have been great at 

that, Mr. Chairman, where you will—we will have a discussion, 

and you will say, we will work with you, and we will accept the 

language, and move forward. I think we have a colleague here who 

says—and we all—we have heard today that everybody agrees with 

this concept, and he is willing to work with everybody to make sure 

that all of those issues are resolved, so I don’t know what the big 

issue—if the sponsor of the amendment says he wants to resolve 

these issues, the Chairman of the Committee, who controls the 

Committee, can sit down with him and work out those issues, I am 

not quite sure what the big problem is here. 

I yield back. 

Chairman GORDON. Well, I think there are a couple of ways—another way to approach this is, again, that in essence this could be 

made in abeyance and let both sides work together and then come 

forward with something. I think that is going to make folks over 

here more comfortable. 

Mr. BROUN. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Yes, Dr. Broun. 

Mr. BROUN. I would be happy to accept a secondary amendment 

from Dr. Baird if he wants to present one or I would rather do that 

and actually get some lobbying prohibition put in place, but I 

would be glad to work with the Chairman as well as others on the 

other side to try to straighten this out. I just want to—would like 

to go forward with some lobbying prohibition. I certainly don’t want 

to stop any dialogue between members of this committee or anybody with any part of the Administration. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
612 

So I would be very happy to work this out. I would like to see 

the amendment accepted and then let us work out the language in 

the final product if possible. 

And I yield back. 

Chairman GORDON. Okay. All right. The problem we are going 

to have to get the secondary amendment, we are going to have to 

get it printed up, walked through, and it is just going to take us 

awhile. So I think we are going to have to, with unanimous consent, move your amendment to the back of the amendments, see 

if they can come up with their printing, and if they can do it, we 

will go forward. If they can’t, then we will just—either you can 

have a vote on yours or we will hold it and wait and try to work 

it out later. 

Mr. BROUN. Mr. Chairman, if I have your assurance, because I 

have the utmost respect and confidence in your word, if you will 

assure me that we can work out this language and get it in the 

final product, I will withdraw and defer to you. If I can have that 

assurance from you, sir. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BAIRD. I think Ms. Edwards wants to be recognized. 

Chairman GORDON. Ms. Edwards is recognized. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, because I actually 

really do have some concern. We have talked a lot in this committee about consistency, and I worry when you take part of a provision like this, well-intentioned, I think, Mr. Broun, when you 

don’t take all of it where there are already criminal sanctions available, and then single this out for a specific lobbying prohibition. 

Does that mean that every time we want to prohibit lobbying 

with appropriated funds, rather than going back to the code where 

there is an overall prohibition, that we would have to create that? 

Because I actually think that that in itself creates a legal problem. 

So in one part of the code and one section you would have a prohibition, but then in another, not, and the fact is that there isn’t underlying prohibition on using appropriated funds to lobby. 

And there is—you know, before coming into Congress I spent a 

fair amount of time, about 10 years, working on lobbying prohibitions. And the idea behind putting lobbying prohibitions across the 

board when using appropriated funds is specifically so that we 

don’t have to come in every single committee, in every single piece 

of legislation and worry about whether we have interfered with 

that prohibition. 

And so I don’t—actually, one, I think we could use some advice 

from counsel because I am actually not certain that this provision 

frankly is even necessary given the state of the law as it is, and 

I would like some clarification to that before I would go forward. 

And I yield just briefly to Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So your position is that this is already illegal 

across the board to use government grants to lobby us. So that is 

your position, which seems to be in contrast to your colleague’s position that such a restriction is unconstitutional in some way. 

I guess that type of inconsistency on that side of the aisle is what 

maybe— 

Ms. EDWARDS. Well, if the gentleman would— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —Dr. Broun was trying to clarify. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
613 

Ms. EDWARDS. I would like to reclaim my time. There is no inconsistency at all because the lobbying prohibition that exists has 

an exclusion for the Constitutional issues that have been raised, 

and so there is no inconsistency. Where the inconsistency would be 

is if the—if we in this committee pass a lobbying prohibition and 

we don’t do it anyplace else, and then it raises into question whether that underlying provision prevails or whether this one would, 

even when it has the same or similar language. 

And so I would beg for this committee to exercise a little judgment of consistency and conformity and understanding, and speaking as somebody who has raised a lot of federal money and worked 

with it and had to sign off on those prohibitions, I know that people 

some are clear, and when they are not clear, they face criminal 

prosecution as is contained in the code already. 

And so I believe that those lobbying restrictions with the appropriate constitutional exceptions are already in law, and I don’t see 

any reason for this committee to replicate that. 

Mr. BROUN. Would the lady yield? 

Ms. EDWARDS. I will yield, Mr. Broun. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. We are putting in place 

in this bill the Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship. We are 

charging it directly with the responsibility of advocating policies. 

It is against the law to lobby, but we are charging this office to 

lobby if we don’t clarify that, and that is the reason that we have 

the necessity of this. This is to maintain consistency. I want to 

work this out so that we do maintain consistency, but we are 

charging in this bill for this Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship to advocate policies, and I am just very, very concerned about 

that because what— 

Ms. EDWARDS. Well, let me reclaim my time, because a plain 

English definition of advocacy is not, in fact, the same thing as lobbying, and the law that is in place would apply to the use of any 

appropriated funds for lobbying as already defined with criminal 

sanctions that are available. 

And so I just—one, I don’t see the necessity to it, and I think if 

you were—if we were doing anything, we would simply refer back 

to the underlying law that already has criminal sanctions and includes the Constitutional exceptions. 

And with that— 

Mr. BROUN. Would the gentlelady yield? 

Ms. EDWARDS. —I yield my time. 

Mr. BROUN. Would the gentlelady yield back? 

Chairman GORDON. I suspect that Mr. Inglis would like to yield 

you some time, Dr. Broun. 

Mr. INGLIS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I was thinking of doing that. I 

would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Georgia. 

Mr. BROUN. I thank the Chairman, thank my colleague from 

South Carolina. 

I would like to ask Mr. Edwards to define advocacy so that we 

can have it plain and clear. I just want to be sure that we don’t 

have this federal entity charged with lobbying with—and I want 

some consistency throughout the government, and what we seem to 

be doing and my concern is that we are charging this federal agenVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00619 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
614 

cy, the Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, to do what is 

blatantly untenable under federal law. 

So the whole intent of this and what I have offered to do is to 

try to clarify the language with my colleagues on the other side and 

am eager to do so. I am very well aware of the first amendment 

and what it says, and I am very well aware that we need to have 

the ability to ask people in the Administration questions about 

what they are doing, and we need to hold them accountable. 

And I am eager to try to work this out so that the way the bill 

is written right now today, it appears to me just through the plain, 

commonsense language, and I am a commonsense language person, 

the bill charges the Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship in 

advocating policies, which is lobbying. 

Now, if there is a difference between lobbying and advocating 

policies, I would like to know it, but—and I would like to just work 

this out so that—and I am eager to do so. Very eager to do so so 

that we can all be satisfied, and if we could do that, I would like 

to proceed forward. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. GRAYSON. May I inquire at this point? I know the gentleman 

yielded back, but perhaps he would like to un-yield his yielding so 

that I could ask him a brief question. 

Mr. BROUN. I have already yielded back. 

Chairman GORDON. Well, let me make this suggestion. I think 

we are all seeing the same—I hate to use the word ‘‘wreck’’, but 

the same incident, but we are seeing it a little bit differently. I 

think a lot of this is definitions, and so this really is somewhat first 

experience in terms of going through this for many of us right here. 

I just don’t see how we can come to a conclusion today. 

Again, I would hope that the two of you—that all of us will work 

together for common language. I cannot guarantee you, you know, 

I can only guarantee you there will be an effort to work together. 

That is, you know, so that is where we are, and I think we either 

need to vote or, you know, move on, because I think we have got 

to sit down and really talk about this and look at more what the 

precedents are. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Will the Chairman yield for a brief comment? 

Chairman GORDON. Yes, certainly, Mr. Grayson. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you. I just want to suggest that we might 

be able to resolve this by substituting a different amendment that 

says where the bill refers to advocacy simply adding the words ‘‘but 

not lobbying’’. If we add an amendment that says advocacy and 

then added the words ‘‘but not lobbying’’, I think that would address the concerns stressed by certain people on this side of the 

aisle. 

Chairman GORDON. Governor. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I think a question to counsel 

might help us here. Are there in the federal codes laws that define 

and restrict lobbying activity with the use of federal money? 

COUNSEL. We are not aware of all possible references but we do 

know that 18 U.S.C. Section 1913 includes a blanket prohibition on 

the use of any money appropriated by any enactment of Congress 

to be used directly or indirectly for these sorts of things we are 

talking about. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
615 

Mr. GARAMENDI. So at least in one code section this issue is already handled. Unless we provide explicit authorization, otherwise 

that code section would apply, is that the case? 

COUNSEL. It applies to any enactment of Congress. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I think this may have already been covered. 

Perhaps a way of dealing with this without having to really get 

into what is I believe to be a Judiciary Committee matter, is that 

it might be useful simply to reference existing codes, and that is 

a question to counsel. Could this be dealt with that way, or it may 

not even be necessary to do anything? 

COUNSEL. It could be. 

Chairman GORDON. I guess the question, it can be done that 

way. Whether it can be done—whether we have to get a new 

amendment or just what the process is, but Dr. Ehlers is recognized. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just observe. You 

have been the Chairman for some time, and I have always admired 

the way you have resolved these difficulties simply by asking the 

parties to get together before the next meeting or before it appears 

on the Floor or whatever and resolve the problem, and it has 

worked very well every time. You are very fair in bringing people 

together and dealing with the issues of bringing out the facts. I 

think what we are trying to do or have been trying to do here for 

the last 45 minutes is write new law with 30 people with different 

memories and different opinions. So my suggestion is that you just 

do it the way you have normally done it which has worked very 

well and just ask that we defer this and you appoint a group of 

people to resolve it and bring it back to us whether it is in this 

committee or whether it is through a Floor amendment, the Rules 

Committee or whatever. 

But you have done that so well in the past. I think we wasted 

a lot of time here and something that you normally resolve very 

quickly and I urge you to do that. 

Mr. BROUN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. EHLERS. Yes, I will be happy to yield. 

Mr. BROUN. I thank the gentleman’s comment. The Chairman 

and I have been trying to do this for 10 minutes now, and I have 

utmost respect for the Chairman. We have done this very amicably 

in the past, and I assume that we can do so. And if we could just 

reference Title 18 to make sure that we do this, I am fine with 

that. And I suggest that I withdraw the amendment, that we work 

this out. And I have already gotten the Chairman’s assurances that 

we will try to work this out. And I repeat, try to work this out. 

And I believe in my heart that we can with my concerns and the 

concerns on your side so thus I withdraw the amendment. We will 

move forward. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Dr. Broun. And let us don’t mess 

it up. Let us take it and go. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Mr. Chairman, if I just may, I think it is important. 

Just leaning back to what Ms. Edwards said, I think that as we 

work this out that it is important that if we are going to refer to 

this particular U.S. code that we refer to every U.S. code that deals 

with discrimination, employee rights, and safe working environVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00621 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
616 

ments because if we are going to do this, I just hope that is taken 

into consideration, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. I think as we go from here to the Floor, we 

will try to take everything into consideration and have a fair resolution. The amendment is withdrawn. The next amendment on the 

roster is an amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas, Mr. 

Hall. Are you ready to proceed with your amendment? 

Mr. HALL. I am. I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment 022, time stamped April 26, 2010, 5:26 

p.m. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute 

offered by Mr. Hall of Texas. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous to dispense with the reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the gentleman for 

five minutes to explain the amendment. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today in one way or 

the other creates, expands or modifies a variety of grant programs 

of NSF, DOE and NIH for the institutions of higher education. My 

amendment accomplishes simply one thing, just one thing. It adds 

a section at the end of the bill which for all activities and programs 

supported by this Act and amendment made by this Act gives institutions of higher education that serve students with disabilities 

like Gallaudet here in Washington or those serving disabled veterans like Mount Wachusett Community College in Massachusetts 

the same special consideration given to other institutions that 

serve populations under represented in STEM so that they too can 

benefit from those programs and contribute their competitiveness. 

This language is very similar to a provision already in NSF title 

of the bill. The only difference is that I am applying it to all of the 

titles of the bill and also adding those schools that serve disabled 

veterans for adding those schools that serve disabled veterans to 

the list. I know all of us appreciate the tremendous sacrifices our 

veterans make for the nation. I hope my colleagues will join me in 

support of this amendment. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Hall. The Chairman recognizes himself. We certainly share the spirit of this and the recommendation that was made by the Committee that recommends 

outreach for minorities, women, and disability, made the specific 

recommendation of those charter schools. The concern that I have 

here is that by—this is such an expansion that it covers everywhere where it makes nobody special in this regard. If they are 

serving disabled veterans, that could very well mean that if they 

are in compliance with ADA [Americans With Disabilities Act] and 

you have a veteran there, which virtually every university will 

have, then you are opening it up to say every university is treated 

this way, which really reduces the benefits to Gallaudet and to 

those other schools. So I think your intention is good, but I am 

afraid that the expense is too large. 

Mr. HALL. I am not sure that expense can be too large for disabled veterans. There are 3.1 million vets receiving disability compensation. Only around 280,000 of them are rated as 100 percent 

disabled. I am willing to relegate it some way where it doesn’t 

open— 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
617 

Chairman GORDON. Well, I think, Mr. Hall, the distinction, this 

is not for the disabled veteran. It is for the institution, and so that 

is—I think you have another amendment that provides priority for 

veterans in terms of scholarships. 

Mr. HALL. Right. 

Chairman GORDON. And we would certainly agree with that. 

This is not aimed at giving the disabled veteran a benefit. It is the 

institution that the disabled veteran might attend and that is going 

to be in all institutions. 

Mr. HALL. They may be paid for it, but the disabled veteran 

would be the recipient of the treatment. It would open—if that 

opens the flood gates maybe we ought to open the flood gates. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, the reading, apparently it 

says institutions of higher education charted to serve large number 

of students with disabilities, and there is a quantification there 

that does differentiate one institution from another. Maybe it needs 

to be more defined but that is some language. 

Chairman GORDON. I think those are two different sections there, 

and again it is how you might interpret it, but again it goes to the 

institution, not the student or the veteran. 

Mr. HALL. That is exactly true but the veteran receives the educational treatment that gives him a better opportunity to have a 

normal life. 

Chairman GORDON. Well, not necessarily because it is whatever 

that institution may be getting the veteran might not be interested 

in. 

Mr. HALL. Well, you know, a little Boy Scout helped a woman 

across the street and she didn’t want to go might be the situation 

anywhere, but I think by and large the situation would be that the 

veteran would be benefitted from it. He would benefit from it by 

upping his skills at the educational market and have a better opportunity to come back and return to society however disabled they 

were. If you are disabled, you are disabled. 

Chairman GORDON. That is why we would be supporting the next 

amendment that talks about the veteran specifically. As a practical 

matter, this is going to make every institution available so it is 

really no benefit to anyone. 

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Yes, Dr. Baird. 

Mr. BAIRD. Would this language—let me give an example and see 

if this suggestion will help and it may be already in there and I 

may be just reading it wrong. So not far from here we have got 

Gallaudet and there are institutions for the blind and there are 

others. Some subset of our veterans and institutions have particularly helped people with paralysis and lost limbs, et cetera. A subset of our veterans may attend an institution like Gallaudet. Maybe 

they lost their hearing. If we were to say veterans within institutions along the lines of what Mr. Rohrabacher was saying, that are 

specifically chartered to serve a large number of people with disabilities, so then—the veterans who fit that category benefit from 

being in such institutions. I think the Chairman’s point is, insofar 

as every college and university in America ought to be serving veterans with disabilities, by opening it up to every college and instiVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00623 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
618 

tution, we are not targeting anybody. I think that is your point, 

Mr. Chairman. 

So Mr. Hall’s point, those veterans with disabilities who are attending institutions chartered specifically to serve large numbers of 

people with disabilities would benefit from this. So could we add 

or modify the language in that fashion? 

Mr. HALL. We could take some modified language and I would 

recommend some modified language to you and will continue to 

work with you on it. We could say—well, of course, we refer to populations underrepresented in STEM so that they too can benefit. 

Disabled veterans are certainly an underrepresented population, 

and I think they certainly come under this, and if there is some 

way to relegate it population wise to each institution, I wouldn’t be 

adverse to that. And we could put this where it says and those 

with programs serving disabled veterans or those who have large 

numbers of veterans shall receive special consideration. 

Chairman GORDON. The problem is the amendment is sort of 

unspecific, and to serve the disabled if all—every school is going to 

abide by the ADA, and if they abide by the ADA, then by definition, they are serving the veterans so they are serving everybody. 

Mr. HALL. Well, we are talking about yellow ribbon schools determined by the Department of Veterans Affairs potentially. But I 

think there is a way to do this and perhaps we tried to work something out here and have been unable to. I am not anxious to make 

anybody vote against veterans or disabled veterans. None of us 

want to do that, but we don’t want to flood the market unnecessarily but it is hard for me to feel that if a veteran, a disabled veteran, can benefit themselves some education they receive though 

the school receives the money that that makes a lot of sense to me. 

I don’t—maybe I am not opposed to flooding the market with those 

if there is that many out there that seek that type education. I 

don’t think there would be. 

Chairman GORDON. Again, it is not the individual. It is going to 

be the school and every school is going to be eligible so— 

Mr. HALL. But they have to have a warm body. 

Chairman GORDON. Well, there may be a school that doesn’t 

have a veteran somewhere or a disabled veteran, but there won’t 

be many. 

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, if I may. 

Chairman GORDON. Yes, Dr. Baird. 

Mr. BAIRD. I share, and I think we all share Mr. Hall’s desire 

to try to help out disabled veterans. And, Mr. Hall, if there is a 

way, and I think that is what you are grasping at in saying if there 

is a way to target the help for the veterans rather than speak to 

the institution where the veteran happens to go to school because 

so many veterans are going to so many schools that the school benefits but the veteran themselves may not. And analogous—and it 

is not a perfect analogy—but analogous Ms. Bernice Johnson, she 

was able to target institutions because there are specific institutions chartered with specific missions. 

It is harder to do it in the case of veterans but maybe there is 

a way we can revisit the intent of this, draft some different amendment so that, for example—let me give you an example. Let us suppose a chemistry department wants to participate in an effort in 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
619 

a hub, let us say, and that chemistry department makes a particular element of its application that we are working with veterans. Then they are there but not just because a veteran happens 

to attend the school, and I don’t know how to do that. I am sure 

we cannot do that in the time here, but that seems to be what we 

are shooting for here. And I don’t know how to get there but that 

seems to be what we are trying to get at. 

Mr. HALL. If we can’t do that in the time here, and we have tried 

and apparently been unable to work out language that is agreeable 

to both sides, we can either vote an up or down vote on the bill 

the way it is or we can have some type of—the Chairman is fair. 

I don’t say anybody here is unfair. No one wants to be unfair with 

the disabled veterans nor the schools that educate them nor the 

schools that benefit some by upgrading a potential disabled veteran’s chances in the workaday world. Maybe we can work something out that protects it from—we have situations here, all samples of schools, with disabled veterans programs. The University of 

Idaho has Operation Education they call it, Arkansas State University, the Pride Center for America’s Wounded Veterans, the University of Kansas, the Wounded Warrior Education Initiative Program. 

They have got programs for veterans all over. Michigan State has 

the MSU Disabled Veterans Assistance Program— 

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BAIRD. What if we take that principle that you are working 

on here and said something like, wordsmithing here a little bit, but 

‘‘priority shall be given to institutions who have demonstrated programs dedicated to increasing the involvement of disabled veterans 

in the STEM fields.’’ So the mere attendance at your institution 

doesn’t qualify, but if your institution has gone out of its way and 

created a program to help disabled veterans participate in STEM 

education, then you get some priority. Maybe your language does 

that already, but I think that is what you are driving at. 

Chairman GORDON. Ms. Edwards is recognized. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hall, and I have to 

tell you as the daughter of a disabled veteran, I always want to try 

to figure out with you what we can do for our disabled veterans. 

And I want to get to what the underlying I think issue is with the 

institutions that are chartered. And we have a number of disabled 

veterans, particularly coming back now from Iraq and Afghanistan, 

who have specific kinds of disabilities. They may have lost sight. 

They may have lost hearing. They may have TBI, traumatic brain 

injuries, that result in attention deficit problems. 

And the institutions that are chartered are actually serving those 

particular populations, and so I think if we could work on some 

language that encouraged those institutions that we want to receive sort of priority or receive research funding to also include the 

service that they are giving to our veterans for those particular disabilities, then that would be really good because what is happening 

is that when veterans return with very specialized disabilities 

sometimes the majority institutions aren’t really at a capacity 

where they can serve them. 

And these institutions that are chartered to serve those specific 

disability communities would be in a much better position to do 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
620 

that. And with the research partnerships then, you know, even 

some majority institutions where a person with a traumatic brain 

injury that may have attention deficit is just one in a number of 

the population. So I would like to see if we can work on some language that actually enabled the chartered institutions that are 

serving those disability communities to be able to qualify based on 

also their service to our disabled veterans community. And if you 

would agree, I would love to be able to work with you on the language that would get to those chartered institutions. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you for your efforts and for your suggestion. I 

suggest that we voice vote this with the understanding that we 

work on this to find language that is agreeable to the Chairman 

and agreeable to those who advise the Chairman. I don’t know how 

much time we would have to do that and when this will come to 

the Floor, but if we could work on this till that time, I would be 

willing to do that. Once again, I don’t believe there is anybody on 

here that wants to vote against a disabled veteran under any circumstance no matter what the consequences are. I don’t want to 

put you in that position. I don’t want to be put in that position but 

there must be some way we could work this out that wouldn’t flood 

the gates of any university, but I don’t know why a university 

wouldn’t want these. They are paid well— 

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Hall, if you would yield for just one moment. 

If you look in Section 244 of the section ‘‘Institutions Serving Persons with Disabilities,’’ after it says ‘‘the institutions of higher 

learning chartered to serve large numbers with disabilities’’ you 

could add in there ‘‘including disabled veterans, including Gallaudet University, Landmark College, and the National Institute 

for the Deaf’’ so that you actually get the veterans populations in 

those chartered institutions. 

Mr. HALL. The only problem with that is there are disabled vets 

who aren’t blind or deaf. What do you do with them? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Well, the chartered institutions serve the blind, 

they serve the deaf. If you go to Landmark College because I had 

to do some studying up on Landmark College and the population 

that it serves is a wide range of disability communities across quite 

a swath of disability communities and not just targeted to the deaf 

or the blind. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Rohrabacher, do you want to be recognized? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, let us just note that what this 

is all about. Mr. Hall, who is one of our more distinguished veterans in this body, a veteran from World War II, has over the years 

championed the cause of veterans, especially disabled veterans. 

And now he is trying to add that category onto a list in this legislation that includes a list that says predominantly black institutions, 

tribal college and universities, Native Americans serving non-tribal 

institutions, Asian American, Native and American Pacific Islanders, Alaska Native serving institutions, Native Hawaiian serving 

institutions, Hispanic serving institutions. Now you tell me that all 

these other colleges don’t serve Native Americans, they don’t serve 

Hispanics, they don’t serve blacks, but that is why they have to 

designated here, but disabled American veterans don’t deserve any 

of that consideration as all those other groups. Now this is— 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
621 

Mr. BAIRD. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, let me finish my point first. Look, obviously we want all Americans to benefit from any legislation that 

we pass. We have already gone through so we have come to the 

point where we are naming these groups, naming institutions that 

are designed specifically for those groups although we realize all 

colleges and universities have to serve all Americans, otherwise it 

is discrimination and I it is against the law. But that didn’t deter 

us from putting these names on the list, and I would suggest that 

our Ranking Member is doing a wonderful job for a group of people 

here and that we should not—he should not be getting this type 

of resistance. 

Mr. BAIRD. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I certainly would, yes. 

Mr. BAIRD. I thank the gentleman. I want to be really clear. I 

spent a great deal of my time helping disabled veterans. I have a 

doctorate in psychology. I work with brain-injured veterans. I am 

passionate about this. I spent a lot of my life on it. Ms. Edwards 

talked about her own father. We are trying to help here. Let me 

explain, if I may. It is your time but our concern is, precisely, Mr. 

Hall wants to help disabled veterans. We all agree with that and 

he has acknowledged that. Our concern is the way the bill is written it is so broad that the veterans themselves may not benefit. We 

are trying to say, let us write it in such a way so that the veterans 

benefit and not just any institution that happens to have a veteran 

at it. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay, but reclaiming my time. For example, 

they defined Hispanic Serving Institution. If only 25 percent of the 

student body is Hispanic, it becomes a Hispanic serving institution. 

You know, if we are talking about thresholds here, let us talk 

about thresholds, but the fact is this is a principle that we are trying to get at, and I don’t think it is going to cause the dislocation 

that this resistance to Mr. Hall’s amendment seems to be bringing 

forth. We are only talking about special consideration here. That 

is all we are talking about. And I think these disabled veterans, 

maybe all veterans, but especially those people who are disabled 

deserve special consideration. 

Mr. BAIRD. Would the gentleman—nobody on our side has said 

a word about worrying about whether funding is going to be dislocated from somewhere else. We are actually quite the contrary. 

We are not resisting this because—we are not resisting it. Let me 

start there. There is no resistance from our side, zero, to the intent 

of this amendment, zero that I am hearing. What we are trying to 

say is let us write it in such a way that it actually helps the targeted population. And I hope my friend is not trying to set up a— 

I don’t think he is because you are a good friend, I don’t think you 

are trying to imply that, oh, gee, those Democrats were eager to 

help all sorts of minorities but when it came to veterans they dug 

in their heels. Quite the contrary. What we are trying to do is say 

if you want to help veterans let us write language that definitely 

helps the veterans, not the broad institution that a veteran may 

happen to attend but the veteran gets none of the benefit. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Reclaiming my time just so you know. I do 

not automatically think that every time we come up with someVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00627 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
622 

thing or you come up with something that sounds like it would resonant in the public that it is politically motivated. And, as I say, 

I don’t know anybody else who is more respected in this Congress 

for the service that he has given our country than Ralph Hall, and 

he is trying to do something good here and it just seems to me we 

have reached—all these other situations where we are, yeah, sure, 

okay, native serving institution, fine. We didn’t worry about defining it in a way even though Native Americans go to lots of institutions. 

Chairman GORDON. If the gentleman would yield. I think what 

we are trying to stop is this. We are trying to stop what you might 

call an unethical school or a school that wants to parade out or recruit one disabled veteran in a 50,000 school to try to get some 

kind of preference. What we would like to get to is a school that 

provides some type of special training for a large number of veterans. We are trying to get it to the veteran, not to the school. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, just about every legislation 

that we pass, if you try to find a provision you can carry it out to 

where somebody can manipulate it. Almost every piece of legislation we pass, there is a way for someone who doesn’t want to go 

with the spirit of it to take advantage of it. And the spirit of what 

Ralph Hall is trying to do here is clear, and it is just as clear as 

those servicing Hispanic institutions which are in here, and I am 

not opposed to that. But, anyway, we can make that argument just 

about anything that we bring up that there is somebody who can 

actually manipulate it in a way that it wasn’t intended. 

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, it is because of my profound respect 

for Mr. Hall that I am trying to be helpful here and I think that 

is the case with my colleagues. We are sincerely trying to make 

sure the money goes—I have been in institutions. I taught there. 

And Mr. Hall gave a great list of deserving institutions that have 

created specific programs to help veterans get into STEM, so that 

is why I said let us make the language not just that you serve a 

veteran because serving a veteran means you give somebody a 

class. They get a GI bill. They come in, you give them a class, but 

there the hell with them. You don’t care about them. That is not 

going to help the individual. It may help the institution. They say, 

oh, look, we got a veteran here, give us money. 

What Mr. Hall wants to say is make sure the veterans get into 

the STEM opportunities 100 percent right, and it is because I respect him that I agree with his intent, don’t disagree with it at all. 

I just think the language as written is overly broad and if we can 

focus it, it will actually do what he wants in a better way. So this 

is because we respect Mr. Hall and our veterans that we are trying 

to help. I actually concur with Mr. Hall. I think we ought to voice 

vote it, pass it, and then work with him to try to improve it and 

make sure it gets to the people he wants it to get to. I actually 

agree with that. 

Mr. HALL. And I say that that is agreeable. I don’t disagree with 

that, and I respect the gentleman and everyone here. I respect the 

Chairman enough to believe that we will be able to write around 

it to where it would be acceptable and not detrimental to the universities nor detrimental to the veterans. And if we voice vote it, 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
623 

and if that voice vote is aye, then I will feel a lot better toward the 

opportunity of working it out. 

Chairman GORDON. I think Mr. Grayson would like the last word 

and then we will go to a voice vote. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Rather than talking about this in the abstract, I 

am looking at the language and I just would like to get a chance 

from Mr. Hall about how it might apply to specific instances. That 

will give me some idea of exactly what we might be buying into 

through a voice vote. This provision says that there are three classes of institutions that get special consideration. One is institutions 

chartered to serve large number of students with disabilities. The 

second one is institutions with programs serving disabled veterans. 

And the third one is institutions that serve disabled veterans. 

I just want to get a general sense of how you think that should 

work in practice, and I honestly, listening to the debate, don’t have 

that yet. So if Mr. Hall would be so kind, we will just pick an example. Let us say a large undifferentiated institution not specifically targeted towards veterans like, let us say, the University of 

Southern California. Can Mr. Hall please tell me if he contemplates, would an institution like USC be one that is chartered 

to serve large number of students with disabilities? 

Mr. HALL. They may not have a described program but they 

probably would have a lot of such veterans there and need in that 

area. I would even listen to limiting it to 10 percent of the student 

body of the institution that they apply to. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Well, I think a numerical limit would be— 

Mr. HALL. There is a right way to work this out I think if we 

had time to work it out. And I would feel good if we voice voted 

this and then agree to work it out. 

Mr. GRAYSON. All right. Reclaiming my time just to work this 

through and get a sense of what you have in mind, and I do think 

a numerical limit would be extremely helpful here. Again, returning to a specific example, let us say USC again. Would Mr. Hall 

contemplate that USC be an institution with programs serving disabled veterans and, therefore, qualifying for the special consideration under the amendment? 

Mr. HALL. Yes. 

Mr. GRAYSON. All right. And would USC also be an institution 

serving disabled veterans and, therefore, qualifying for special consideration? 

Mr. HALL. I would consider that. 

Mr. GRAYSON. All right. It sounds to me that—reclaiming my 

time. It sounds to me that the Chairman’s point actually is well 

taken and if USC qualifies under this provision essentially every 

college or university in the country might, and, therefore, I am concerned that this provision is overly broad. I do understand what I 

think Mr. Hall is trying to accomplish here, and, as Dr. Baird has 

said, I agree with it, but I do have the Chairman’s concern that 

this language includes potentially every college and university in 

the country without any limitations. I am sorry to reach that conclusion but based upon what I have heard, that is my conclusion. 

I yield the rest of my time. 

Chairman GORDON. Okay. If there is no further discussion, the 

vote is on Mr. Hall’s amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
624 

nay. The ayes have it, and we will continue to work on the attention that everyone wants, and that is to help those disabled veterans. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the gentlemen 

who have made the suggestions, and we will remain willing to 

work something out that is reasonable. 

Chairman GORDON. You are the one that made the suggestion. 

The next amendment on the roster is the amendment offered by 

the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall. Are you ready to proceed with 

your amendment? 

Mr. HALL. I do have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment 024, amendment to the amendment in 

the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Hall of Texas. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. And without further objection, so ordered. I recognize 

the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment could be considered as 

a companion to my previously offered amendment, the previously 

passed amendment, and also affects the whole bill. The last amendment partially deals with institutions of higher education with programs for disabled veterans. This amendment speaks specifically to 

scholarship and fellowship programs offered in this Act. It simply 

states that when awarding scholarships and fellowships a school 

‘‘shall give preference to veterans and service members.’’ including 

those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of these young men 

and women return home and either begin or continue their college 

education, often times after receiving quite a bit of on-the-job training in a variety of STEM fields. This positions them well for opportunities offered under this Act and they deserve preference if they 

are submitting quality applications. I hope my colleagues will join 

me in supporting this amendment. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Hall, and I think this is a 

good targeted amendment to the veterans themselves. Is there further discussion? Ms. Edwards. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Hall, just to be really clear, I think this is a 

great amendment. I look forward to supporting it, and I thank you 

for your service. 

Mr. HALL. And just to be perfectly clear, I think you are a wonderful member of this— 

Chairman GORDON. So we are all clear and with no further discussion the vote is on Mr. Hall’s amendment. All in favor, say aye. 

Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. 

The next amendment on the roster is the amendment offered by 

the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Neugebauer. I just mess it up every 

time, don’t I? My friend from Texas, are you ready to proceed with 

your amendment? 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment 069, amendment to the amendment in 

the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Neugebauer of Texas. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
625 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Well, I am thinking about just yielding my 

time to the Ranking Member because he is on a roll here. Mr. 

Chairman, thank you. You know, we started this discussion earlier 

today, and it has been a long day, but I think we have to understand that we are dealing with, you know, some unprecedented 

times in our budget and in our deficits. We are talking about a deficit that this year could be $1.3 to $1.7 trillion, and that is a lot 

of money. In fact, if you have to count to a trillion dollars, it takes 

you 29,000 years if you started counting with 1, 2, 3. As I travel 

across my district, and I know Members go back to their district, 

and just came off of a recent recess and speaking to groups. One 

of the questions I have been asking the people that I represent, you 

know, to raise their hand how many people in this room, you know, 

are living a better life than their parents, and almost every hand 

goes up in that room. 

And then I ask them how many people in the room believe that 

their children and grandchildren will live a better life than they 

will if we continue down the road here of spending money that we 

don’t have and charging it to our children and grandchildren. And 

you know what is sad very few, if any, hands go up. So this is 

something that is not just rhetoric that should be spoken here in 

Washington, D.C. but this is what the American people all across 

this country are thinking about. 

And they are looking to us, the people that they have elected, to 

manage the affairs of this country to do something about it, and 

so my amendment is very clear and until the CBO director can certify that we do not have a deficit that the spending levels under 

this bill would be frozen at the 2010 authorized amount. And basically that is the same budget that—that is the same principle that 

the American people live off of, you know. If they have more 

money, they are able to spend more money. If they don’t have more 

money, they are not able to spend more money. And I think the 

American people are looking to the Federal Government to be able 

to handle their affairs just like I handle their affairs up here like 

they are handling them back home. 

And so, Mr. Chairman, I think this is a common sense budget. 

I think all of us are committed to making sure that we move some 

of these programs forward. Maybe we are not able to afford to expand them at the rate that this bill does until such time as we do 

demonstrate that we are handling the affairs of the American people in a more appropriate way and the economy turns around and 

those jobs that we have been promised to actually finally show up 

and people get back to work and the economy starts growing again 

and tax revenues go up and maybe we get our pencils out and we 

sharpen them and we figure out ways to, you know, prioritize how 

we spend the American people’s money, and maybe we have to cut 

some programs and maybe we increase some programs but what 

we do know is the direction we are going right now is for continuation of massive deficit, almost doubling the national debt in five 

years, tripling it in 10 years, and that is not sustainable. 

Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke recently said that a number of the President’s cabinet members have said that these are not 

sustainable levels, and so the question is, when do you start doing 

something about that? And we can’t say, well, this committee is not 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
626 

going to do it until another committee is going to do it. I think we 

have to in every committee that we sit on be prudent about how 

we represent the American people’s money and their affairs. And 

I think a good start here today is to say yes to this amendment because it makes sense. It doesn’t gut the funding of the program. It 

just says it is going to be flat until we get back on our feet. With 

that, I yield back my time. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you. Let me—I think you really exhibited many of our concerns about the deficit, but let me put this 

in context. You talk about a family having to live within their 

means. Well, we are moving forward and the President is moving 

forward with a budget that is within the—Discretionary spending 

is flat, and so it is a matter of making priorities, and so there are 

other areas that are going to go down in an effort so that we can 

have priorities for investment that will pay off. And so this is within the context of that flat budget. It is just that many of us feel 

that this is a investment that will pay off. 

I saw that recently. You can see it with Intel, with Microsoft. As 

they have gone through the tough times, they invested in the R&D 

and they have come out better for it at the end. So I certainly agree 

with you that we need to live within a budget, but we need to have 

priorities within that budget. And I yield back to the gentleman 

from Texas. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. And I appreciate the Chairman saying that. I 

think one of the things we do have to understand is the President 

submitted a budget but this body has not passed the budget, and 

it is being represented by the leadership of the Majority that you 

may not present a budget to us, and so I don’t know how we can 

actually go down that pathway of prioritization if we don’t actually 

go down that pathway of prioritization and actually bring a budget 

before the House of Representatives so that we can have that debate and discussion and we have not had that. And so I appreciate 

what you are saying. I would love to have that debate and discussion but since we don’t have that blueprint in front of us, you 

know, I think this is a direction that at least says, you know, we 

are going to hold the line here. Hopefully, that catches on to some 

other committees. They said, you know, we are going to hold the 

line here. You know what, pretty soon we may actually start reducing our deficit, and I yield the gentleman’s time back. 

Chairman GORDON. Well, I hope someone will go under the line 

and we will see some that are actually cut so that we can have priorities. I will just remind everyone that you can’t cash an authorization. This is not an appropriation. This is an effort by our Committee to try to demonstrate where we think there should be priorities. Is there anyone else that wishes to speak? 

Mr. BROUN. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Dr. Broun, you are recognized. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I congratulate my friend, 

Mr. Neugebauer. I hope I got that right. I think I did. For submitting this amendment. I wish I would have thought of it or I would 

have had four instead of three. But I want to associate myself with 

what he said, and I think this is a very good common sense fiscally 

responsible amendment. And I have no illusions. We are not going 

to pass this, and I don’t think Mr. Neugebauer thinks we are going 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
627 

to pass it either, but it is one that does make sense. Mr. Chairman, 

I wish we could control the appropriators with this committee and 

with this legislation. They seem to have a mind of their own and 

do whatever they want to whether it is authorized or not. But we 

have one committee. We can’t affect other committees. We can’t affect appropriators. And what we are doing if we were to pass this 

amendment, we would be telling the appropriators that we are just 

going to hold the line, hold the line until we get out of this budget 

deficit that is unsustainable and untenable for the future of our nation. So I do support the amendment. I congratulate Mr. 

Neugebauer for introducing it. I think it is one that make sense 

just from a fiscally responsible perspective, and it is something that 

unfortunately this committee is going to not do, and I don’t think 

our appropriators are going to do the right thing either. I think we 

are going to see a continuation of deficits and debt created by this 

administration and by the leadership here in Congress. We have 

one opportunity to hold the line, and—with this committee, and 

this is an opportunity to do it. My previous amendment was an opportunity to do it. I wish my colleagues would join us in trying to 

be responsible to the taxpayers of this nation, would join us in trying to be responsible to our children, our grandchildren, and the 

economic future of this nation, because we are not being responsible. We are being very irresponsible, unresponsible, and this 

amendment is to try to hold the line and make us responsible as 

a government. I yield back. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Davis is recognized. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you for the opportunity to make a few comments, and before I get into my comments, I would like to say it 

has been a pleasure and a privilege serving on this committee with 

you, and we have a Chairman that kind of gets it kind of figured 

out and has an awareness in him and a soul within him that realizes without research and spending dollars in targeted areas, our 

nation will not be in the future what it has been in the past. But 

I want to talk a little bit about debt. I—as a kid growing up, I read 

a story about Rip Van Winkle. He went to sleep for a long time. 

Some of the folks in this Congress, and some of the advocates of 

holding the line on spending, must have gone to sleep about 1981. 

Because in 1981 we owed less than a trillion dollars—Ronald 

Reagan elected President, was sworn on January the 20th. On the 

1st of January it was $933 billion. Not a trillion, but 933 billion. 

And there was a lot of folks, not in this room necessarily, but a lot 

that were advocating, as they are doing now, that must have gone 

to sleep, because for the next 2 years, through the first Bush administration, we grew that debt to $4.1 trillion, over $3 billion in 

less than 2 years. And what did we buy with it? Not a single infrastructure did we invest in. But what was that first trillion dollars 

for? For four wars: WWI, WWII, Vietnam and Korea. An interstate 

system in this nation that gave us an opportunity to have the cutting edge, being on the cutting edge of economic development that 

made us the strongest, most powerful nation in the world economically and military-wise. We built every lake in this country that we 

have today before 1981. We built the Panama Canal and gave it 

them back to them in ’79. Sent people to the Moon and brought 

them back, built the shuttles that we have today. Infrastructure 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
628 

that we spent on, and less than a trillion dollars we had spent. 

Then over just 2 years we spent another $3.2 trillion dollars, increasing almost—where were you then? Where I grew up, they say 

pigs get fed and hogs get slaughtered. Looks like the pig of the debt 

got fed quite well for about 2 years and became a fat hog. But we 

didn’t slaughter it, we still let it grow. And through the Clinton administration, with Republicans in control of the House and Senate, 

we started reducing our debts and deficits. Four years without a 

balanced budget. We grew by about $1.6 trillion during the Clinton 

administration, and we downsized government. Cutting taxes to 

downsize government, cutting spending downsizes government. 

And so when you cut taxes and let the debts continue to increase, 

you absolutely are cutting the throats of the future generations. We 

watched that happen. And then someone must have been asleep in 

2001 when it let PAYGO expire. Because when that expired, what 

happened? We doubled our national debt. I imagine Rip Van 

Winkle had some nightmares during the eight years of the Bush 

administration, because we watched those debts just continue to 

grow and explode, double in eight years. So, my friends on both 

sides of the aisle, let us stop pointing fingers. It is okay to talk 

about facts, and what I have given you are facts. Look them up. 

Mr. BROUN. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. DAVIS. I am not through. 

Mr. BROUN. Oh, okay. 

Mr. DAVIS. You will have your five minutes in a minute. What 

happened? We cut taxes, and we didn’t cut government. The American public was convinced that cutting taxes cuts government. That 

is not the case. I am for cutting taxes and don’t like to increase 

them. We passed a prescription drug bill in 2003 and didn’t pay for 

it. We are now, and our children will. I didn’t vote for the health 

care bill that just passed, but it is paid for. It is not going to add 

to the deficits, according to CBO. You may have other figures otherwise. It is time we start paying, you are right, for what we have 

been doing. But shame on you for implying that all this just happened the last year and a half. The $12 trillion we owe has collected over the last 30 years, of which six years of those, from ’81 

to ’87, was controlled by a Republican Senate, and starting in 1995 

through 2007, by a Republican House and Senate, and part of that 

by the Republican President. Maybe I am making political statements now. Let it be, if that is the case, but honesty is something 

that needs to prevail inside this chamber, inside this committee. 

And as we continue debate what is going on in this Nation, we do 

need to get a handle on it. And the move that was made just recently, about a month and a half ago, where we passed a pay as 

you go bill that said, even if the Republicans get control of this 

Congress, they will have to repeal it if they give tax cuts or increase spending. And that is the good thing about it. I yield back 

my time. 

Chairman GORDON. Is there further—Mr. Diaz-Balart is recognized. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You 

know, a lot has been said. The pig was fed too well, and I agree 

with that. The pig was fed too well in the previous eight years. But 

you don’t solve that by tripling that and defending tripling the debt 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
629 

over what you criticize over eight years ago. Now, I am not here 

to point fingers, but what I think is fair, to be serious, is that we 

have two options here. We can say, you know, everybody else in 

Congress needs to cut spending, but we are not going to. We don’t 

want to spend more. We want to cut debt, but let everybody else 

do it, not us here. You know, Mr. Neugebauer has given us a 

chance, and I want to thank him for that. He has given us a chance 

to put the taxpayers’ money where our collective mouth is. This is 

not an issue of pointing fingers. This is an issue of are we willing 

to do our very small part to try to control spending in a very real 

way. That is all this is. Again, let us put the taxpayers’ money 

where our collective mouths are. We have a chance to do that here 

ourselves today. Not to point fingers about eight years or this 

President or that President, us. We are the ones that do the budget. We are the ones responsible for spending, Congress is. We have 

an opportunity. So all the rhetoric, let is put it aside. We have an 

opportunity, because this gentleman has given it to us right now, 

to take a vote to put the taxpayers’ dollars, their money, where our 

collective mouths are really loud most of the time on. Here is an 

opportunity. I hope we take this opportunity. Thank you, sir, for 

giving us the opportunity. 

Mr. BROUN. Does the gentleman yield? 

Mr. DIAZ-BALAR. I have three minutes. I would yield it to Mr. 

Broun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BROUN. I thank my friend for yielding. And just in response 

to my friend from Tennessee, we are talking about the deficit, not 

the debt. I have been a strong critic of the spending that went on 

in the 107th, 8th, and 9th Congress. I think it is deplorable and 

absolutely unconscionable that the last administration created the 

debt that was created during that period of time. I wasn’t asleep. 

I was practicing medicine in Georgia. And I would have been a 

fierce opponent, just like I am today, on all this deficit spending. 

I have introduced a balanced budget amendment of the Constitution. I think the Federal government should live within its budget, 

within the revenues that it receives, just like my State of Georgia 

does. But we are talking about the future. We are not talking about 

the past. We have got this great tremendous debt. Every taxpayer 

in this country owes $117,000 as their part of that debt. We cannot 

continue spending money. And what we are looking at, and what 

Mr. Neugebauer’s trying to do is to stop the bleeding. So we are 

looking forward, not looking backwards as my friend just did, and 

I don’t criticize him for doing so. You and I are friends, sir, and 

we will continue to be friends. I am a great critic of deficit spending. PAYGO has been a joke. It has been a joke. We have violated 

PAYGO time after time after time in this Congress. With this Congress we violated PAYGO over and over and over again. The only 

way Obamacare is paid for is higher taxes that is going to kill jobs. 

It is going to kill millions of jobs in this country because of the 

higher taxes. We have people in my district, manufacturers as an 

example. I talked to a manufacturer that hires about 400 people in 

my district that says that he is going to have to lay people off because of Obamacare. And if we, God forbid, do pass the energy tax, 

it is—he is going to have to close up and go offshore, or go out of 

business. This Congress is creating debt far more than we have 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
630 

seen in the past administration. I am not talking about the past 

administration. I am a great critic of the past administration and 

the past Republican controlled Congresses, because it should not 

have been done. But we are looking forward. We are looking forward to what is going to be the future. You cannot tax and spend 

and borrow your way to prosperity, and that is what this Congress 

is trying to do. Mr. Neugebauer has given us an opportunity to stop 

the bleeding. And so talking about people being asleep, I take offense to that, because I wasn’t here. I wasn’t asleep. I was a private citizen, and I was a great critic of all the deficit spending that 

was going on during that period of time, and the debt that was 

being created with that. So it is critical that we stop the bleeding. 

Mr. Neugebauer has given us an opportunity, and this committee 

has one opportunity to stop it. One opportunity, and this is it. And 

I yield back. 

Chairman GORDON. All time has expired on that discussion. If 

there is no further discussion, then the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor say aye. Opposed, no. The nays have it, and the 

amendment is—we will let the clerk call the roll. 

The CLERK. Chairman Gordon? 

Chairman GORDON. No. 

The CLERK. Chairman Gordon votes no. Mr. Costello? 

Mr. COSTELLO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Costello votes no. Ms. Johnson? 

Ms. JOHNSON. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Johnson votes no. Ms. Woolsey? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Wu? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Baird? 

Mr. BAIRD. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Baird votes no. Mr. Miller? 

Mr. MILLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Miller votes no. Mr. Lipinski? 

Mr. LIPINSKI. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lipinski votes no. Ms. Giffords? 

Ms. GIFFORDS. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Giffords votes no. Ms. Edwards? 

Ms. EDWARDS. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Edwards votes no. Ms. Fudge? 

Ms. FUDGE. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Fudge votes no. Mr. Luja ́n? 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Luja ́n votes no. Mr. Tonko? 

Mr. TONKO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Tonko votes no. Mr. Garamendi? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Rothman? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Matheson? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Davis? 

Mr. DAVIS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Davis votes no. Mr. Chandler? 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
631 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Carnahan? 

Mr. CARNAHAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Carnahan votes no. Mr. Hill? 

Mr. HILL. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hill votes no. Mr. Mitchell? 

Mr. MITCHELL. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Mitchell votes no. Mr. Wilson? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mrs. Dahlkemper? 

Mrs. DAHLKEMPER. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Dahlkemper votes no. Mr. Grayson? 

Mr. GRAYSON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Grayson votes no. Ms. Kosmas? 

Ms. KOSMAS. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Kosmas votes no. Mr. Peters? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Hall? 

Mr. HALL. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hall votes aye. Mr. Sensenbrenner? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Lamar Smith? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye. Mr. Bartlett? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Lucas? 

Mr. LUCAS. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lucas votes aye. Mrs. Biggert? 

Mrs. BIGGERT. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Biggert votes no. Mr. Akin? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer? 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer votes aye. Mr. Inglis? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. McCaul? 

[No response]. 

The CLERK. Mr. Diaz-Balart? 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Diaz-Balart votes aye. Mr. Bilbray? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Adrian Smith? 

Mr. SMITH OF NEBRASKA. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Adrian Smith votes aye. Mr. Broun? 

Mr. BROUN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Broun votes aye. Mr. Olson? 

[No response.] 

Chairman GORDON. Has anyone not been recorded? Mr. Rothman? 

Mr. ROTHMAN. —I wish to be recorded as no. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
632 

The CLERK. Mr. Rothman votes no. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Wu, how have you been recorded? 

The CLERK. Mr. Wu votes no. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Garamendi? 

Mr. GARAMENDI. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Garamendi votes no. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Matheson? 

Mr. MATHESON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Matheson votes no. 

Chairman GORDON. Dr. Ehlers? 

Mr. EHLERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers votes aye. 

Chairman GORDON. And anyone else? Then the clerk will report 

the vote. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, eight members vote aye and 23 members vote no. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
633 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116d.eps
634 

Chairman GORDON. Just for information of the Committee, we 

have—excuse me, the amendment fails. For the information of the 

members, we have three more amendments from Rohrabacher, oh, 

four from Mr. Rohrabacher. And then we will—there were a couple 

of amendments that passed. If those members are here, then we 

will cover those, and then we will be at final passage. So, the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is recognized. Are you 

ready to plea with your amendment? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. I would think this 

would be—yes, I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Is this amendment 034? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. This is amendment 034. 

The CLERK. Okay. 

The CLERK. 034, amendment to the amendment in the nature of 

a substitute offered by Mr. Rohrabacher of California. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I think this should be relatively 

uncontroversial, or non-controversial, as compared to some of the 

other things, perhaps. It just simply says that any of the funds that 

are spent by the COMPETES Act must go to United States Citizens or United States entities. So we are just talking about giving 

this to American companies or U.S. Citizens, rather than people 

who are not citizens or foreign corporations. And I think that that 

pretty well speaks for itself, and I would hope—colleagues would 

believe this is not controversial. Thank you. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you. I know that the gentleman is 

very—is, you know, obviously sincere about this and well intentioned. The problem is this. Many of these projects are done in 

teams, and the effort is to get the best and brightest of the national 

labs, the public sector, the private sector, all around. And so there 

may very well be a Ph.D. or someone in this country who is working at a university, who is not a citizen here, who is the top expert 

in this area. And we would be—it is not like they are making some 

big profit. We would be cutting our nose off to spite our face if we 

do not let them participate. Additionally, what you have is you 

have a situation where many companies in this, you know, in the 

United States that are American companies do have plants overseas that might want to use some of this technology. If they are 

not allowed to do it, then they could very well be behind, and 

what—even though those profits are coming back here. So the intention is well, and I think there is some specific language in 

ARPA–E that stops the—if I could call on Mr. King to be more specific about that language. 

COUNSEL. In the amendment in the nature of a substitute, there 

is language inserted into ARPA–E that refers to research and development of advanced manufacturing processes and technologies 

for the domestic manufacturing of novel energy technologies. If that 

is what you are referring to, sir. 

Chairman GORDON. I yield back to Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, if that is what it is, no one should have 

any objection to voting for my amendment. And just have to tell 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
635 

Mr. Chairman, I feel very strongly about this, and like I said earlier, when other objections were being made about Mr. Hall’s 

amendment, we can always take things out to some—and find 

some one percent case or two percent case where something isn’t 

the way we really want. But—and the spirit of this legislation is 

we want to help the people of the United States of America. The 

purpose of this—yeah, there may be a visiting professor or something like that. I don’t care. I don’t care about him. I care about 

our people, and I know you guys do too. And the bottom line is we 

need to set this standard. We are out for the people of the United 

States of America. We are for our companies. We are in a hole 

right now, and our first and only consideration should be them. I 

don’t care about some foreign guy who wants to come in here, 

might be able to contribute. I would rather that job go to an American, period. 

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And that goes for the companies too, so I 

hope you can support it. Thank you. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Wu is recognized? 

Mr. WU. I understand the gentleman’s intent, and I just want to 

get a little bit more specific with the Chairman’s very well—placed 

general concerns about getting the best and brightest. If we go 

back to World War II and the Manhattan Project, I think the gentleman recognizes that there were a tremendous number of Americans and foreigners who worked together. Albert Einstein came to 

this country in 1933. He wrote his warning letter about a potential 

Nazi bomb project in 1939. He did not receive his citizenship until 

1940. Now, maybe we should have cut off funds to Dr. Einstein between 1933 and 1940, but it might have had serious consequences 

for the security of this nation. Other participants in the Manhattan 

Project: Edward Teller got his U.S. Citizenship in 1941, well after 

the commencement of the Manhattan Project. Enrico Fermi got his 

U.S. Citizenship in 1944, again, well after the commencement of 

the Manhattan Project. And I guess I just want to rely on my own 

personal experience in that my father came to this country as a foreign graduate student, and he worked on materials science for the 

U.S. military, and he is very proud of that work, but he did all that 

work before he became a U.S. Citizen. And since then he has 

worked in the private sector, again, in the defense industry. I understand where the gentleman is coming from. I think that this 

would be devastating to our scientific leadership, and devastating 

to our national security. It is a great political point. I take it that 

the gentleman is sincere, but this is a counterproductive amendment, and I regretfully oppose it. 

Mr. DAVIS. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. WU. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Tennessee. 

Mr. DAVIS. In Oak Ridge we have a national lab that has the 

SNS, Spallation Neutron Source. We also have a facility that has 

been built there for visiting scientists to come here from all across 

the world. Will this have an impact on them being able to use the 

facilities at the SNS project, or other national labs, such as our 

computer that we have in Oak Ridge? And will we in turn, as we 

visit their scientific research facilities, will they then deny us an 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
636 

opportunity to engage in—I am just wondering if—how this will 

work. I mean, we have a lot of visiting scientists who come to Oak 

Ridge, and we in turn kind of exchange back and forth. If this 

doesn’t deny them the right to actually participate in our research, 

in the facilities that we built and ARPA funds, I am okay with this 

amendment. But if it does, it means we stop actually having an exchange of ideas back and forth between many foreign scientists. 

Can someone answer that? 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. King, you want to answer that? 

COUNSEL. As I read the language, it would—I am sorry. As I 

read the language, it would prohibit funds being spent on projects 

in which foreign scientists are involved. 

Mr. DAVIS. If Mr. Wu would yield, I think the bottom line is this. 

Mr. Rohrabacher, and I think all of us, our objective is we want 

the best for the American people. To me, the best is to get the best 

product out. You know, I mean, the way we win is to have, you 

know, new technologies, new breakthroughs. And so if it is Enrico 

Fermi, if it is Albert Einstein, if it is Van Buren, you know, if they 

can help us get that very best product, that is how Americans win. 

And if there is—Dr. Ehlers is recognized. 

Mr. EHLERS. I don’t want to beat a dead horse here, but let me 

just express the opinion of a scientist, and that is that science is 

an international enterprise. Scientists around the world work together. They publish primarily in English, but if they publish in 

Russian or Greek or something else, it is usually translated into 

English. Everyone works together worldwide, and most scientists 

don’t care who pays them, just so they get something paid for. But 

they truly enjoy working on science, and they are always after the 

best and brightest. A current example, I just turned in today to 

the—and a resolution commending the 100th anniversary of the development of the MASER, which led to the—I am sorry, of the 

MASER, which led to the laser. Charles Townes, who is a friend 

of mine, he is currently at Berkeley, developed a MASER here in 

the United States. A few months later, the Russians developed a 

different version of the maser. It had an advantage that it operated 

continuously, instead of in pulses the way that the Townes one did. 

Some bright Americans took the ideas from both scientists in commerce and developed a current laser. And, of course, it has gone 

through many iterations since then. If you look at that—I calculated at one point that Mr. Townes got something like 100 to 

$200,000 from the Federal government to develop the maser. Today 

the laser industry is a multi-billion dollar industry developed on 

the basis of the work done by both the Russians and by Dr. Townes 

and his aides. Both of them won Nobel prizes for it, even though 

the developed a MASER rather than the laser, but that was the big 

breakthrough. And so it is—it would be impossible to sort out who 

contributed what, and if they were employed, who should get paid 

and who would pay them. So it is—it truly is a completely international effort. I am in great sympathy with what Mr. 

Rohrabacher’s trying to do. We should not be willy-nilly handing 

out money to foreign entities, especially entities, but even individuals, unless we can gain something from it. In the case of the laser 

and the maser, we did gain a great deal from it because we took 

the lead on the laser, and the laser industry has developed here. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
637 

It is now worldwide. So you use lasers from everything to laying 

out sewer lines, putting in ceilings so that they’re all level, to surgery, whether it is removing tonsils or hemorrhoids. Lasers have 

an incredible number of uses, and it is, as I say, a huge industry. 

So you have to be very careful in—when—and analyzing this, you 

may lose more than you gain by restricting the funds in one broad 

stroke. I think there are matters of principle, like Mr. 

Rohrabacher’s, which I think are very important, but which can 

better be enforced by the individuals running the various operations, such as the example you heard from Oak Ridge. And— 

where we built it, we own it, we operate it. But if we can benefit 

from a scientist coming over from some other country and operating it and doing their research there, we gain and they gain. So 

it is not a zero sum game. Sorry for the long speech, but that is 

just the way science works. Thank you. 

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman GORDON. Mr.—oh, okay. Mr. Baird is recognized. 

Mr. BAIRD. Just very brief. I see at least three of the paintings 

in this room deal with our space program. There is a gentleman 

named Wernher von Braun who had a fairly significant impact on 

the U.S. space program. He didn’t originate in the United States 

of America. His past was not necessarily the best, but his contributions to the future was profound, and we were darn lucky that we 

had that contribution. We worked awfully hard to make sure we 

got it instead of the other guys. Second point, I am familiar with 

a company in my district that had an opportunity to expand dramatically and create a number of American jobs, but because one 

of their co-founders, one of the geniuses behind the company, was 

Indian of origin and was not yet a U.S. Citizen, he was here legally, and it was a co-founded company, they became ineligible for 

it here domestically, and they ended up offshoring. We actually lost 

American jobs because of this requirement. There was a 100 percent requirement. The final point I will make is there is a rather 

striking irony to me that on the one hand we are saying, by God, 

let us—and rightfully so, let us make sure the greatest number of 

American money goes to American scientists. The bill before us today’s primary function, the America Competes Act, is to increase 

the numbers of American scientists, and yet we are also debating 

freezing funding for that bill. You can’t, on the one hand, say, let 

us freeze funding and not educate more American scientists, and 

then say, but only American scientists are who we are going to 

help. You have got to expand the pool of American scientists. 

America Competes is precisely designed to do it. That is why we 

are insisting on additional funding, and I just see a remarkable 

lack of foresight in this. And I, you know, I support the Buy America Act. When it comes to heavy U.S. manufacturing, we have got 

to keep some of that domestic supply. But as Mr. Ehlers so ably 

said, and Mr. Wu and many others, and the Chairman, there are 

a lot of smart people in the world, and we need to work with them. 

And if we say the only project that is going to get money has to 

be headquartered in the U.S., the Large Hadron Collider’s out. A 

host of international collaborations that our scientists and our citizens benefit from—and I have been a critic of the Hadron Collider 

not because of its location, because of its cost. But if we just say 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
638 

everything has to come here, and only U.S. men and women benefit, it is the U.S. population and the U.S. economy that is going 

to lose profoundly in the long run, and I would urge— 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Hall is recognized. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield to Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you, Mr. Hall. Hey, come on, we are 

not talking about fighting World War II here. We are talking about 

the U.S. COMPETES. That is what—we are trying to make America competitive, and you don’t make America competitive and have 

more scientists here and get more people into science here by subsidizing foreigners, all right? So we are going to spend a certain 

amount of money, and that it should go to Americans, is just so— 

such a simple proposition, I think that we should be able to understand that. And it is not World War II, and we are not talking 

about that. Look, the bottom line is, we hope there are more Americans here who will get into the sciences. If we subsidize foreigners 

who come in, we are going to have fewer Americans getting into 

the sciences. That is just the way it works. We can have—I am 

flabbergasted with the response to this. I thought this was going 

to be totally non-controversial, given the limited amount of money 

that we have to try to promote a—something that is supposed to 

have us compete and to stimulate science education in our country, 

and we are worried that we are going to spend—certainly don’t 

want to spend the money on Americans. Come on. 

Mr. BAIRD. That is not what— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, I am afraid that is what this is all 

about. And we can be very sophisticated and come up with very sophisticated scenarios how in some way America is going to benefit 

better—you are going to have American scientists be better by giving the money to a foreigner who comes here. Now, I will tell you 

this, we have got plenty of American scientists and engineers who 

deserve to have some little help when they are trying to develop 

a new product. And that is what this is all about. We have got— 

there are—for every one Wernher von Braun—I think he did eventually become a U.S. Citizen. Okay. 

Mr. BAIRD. So did Edward Teller. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let us— 

Mr. BAIRD. So did Einstein. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —wait for Wernher von Brauns to become 

U.S. Citizens before we give them our money. And that would 

maybe encourage people to come here and become U.S. citizens, 

which is a good thing. But, again, what we have—I mean, I am literally flabbergasted at what I am hearing, and I bet there are a 

lot of people out there who are listening to this and saying, well, 

does it really mean that if we just give our money to an American 

company, which is the next one that says, we are going to provide 

the money, but only if they are going to develop—if it is going to 

be used for developing manufacturing outside of our country, we 

are not going to give it to those companies. I imagine you are going 

to be against that as well. There is nothing wrong with us representing the interests of the American people and having—and 

yes, you don’t have to try to have an analysis that carries it five 

steps down to—down the road to see, well, maybe there is an explanation that would make some sense, where we are actually giving 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
639 

the money to a foreigner rather than an American. I will just say 

that we have got lots of kids and lots of businesses and lots of people with creative ideas here who are U.S. citizens, and if we are 

going to have the COMPETES Act—I took it for granted when we 

say competes we are talking about America competing. I take it for 

granted that is what that means, doesn’t it? I mean, we are not 

talking about improving the world. We are talking about making 

America compete. So what is wrong, if that is the purpose of the 

bill, making sure the money goes to Americans? So— 

Chairman GORDON. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Of course. I am sorry for getting passionate 

about this, but— 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Grayson’s been— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I will certainly yield. 

Chairman GORDON. —has been patient here. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. I am sorry. 

Chairman GORDON. His time is not up. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was listening carefully to Mr. Rohrabacher’s comments, and I would never want to 

be accused of sophistication, but there is one scenario that concerns 

me about this amendment, and that is this, and I would like to ask 

him to address it if— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. 

Mr. GRAYSON. —he would. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. 

Mr. GRAYSON. It appears to me that this amendment quite possibly violates several free trade acts that we have entered into, the 

North American Free Trade Act, several other trade acts, and probably the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Now, what happens when our government violates those provisions, that we are 

subject to international litigation, and the taxpayers end up paying 

for that. Not just the cost of litigation, but also the liability. And 

I am concerned about the possibility that exactly that would happen. I understand that that is a sophisticated scenario, but I am 

concerned about it. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well— 

Mr. GRAYSON. Has the gentleman inquired as to whether— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. 

Mr. GRAYSON. —this amendment actually would, in fact, comply 

with all of our international trade agreements, specifically those— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. You know— 

Mr. GRAYSON. —governing government acquisition? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. I will be happy to address it. Reclaiming my time, you know, when I first ran for office, one of the—my 

most effective political slogans was, vote for Dana, at least he is 

not a lawyer. And I have to tell you right now, that is a question 

for legal counsel. And maybe we want to ask legal counsel, what 

are the Constitutional implications of this, how does this impact on 

our various treaties, et cetera? But I think that it is pretty common 

sense that we can pass things through the United States Congress 

that are aimed at benefiting the American people, to the exclusion 

of having to provide that same amount of money to foreigners. I 

happen to believe that that has to be legal in the broadest sense, 

and hopefully in the specific sense. If we have entered into treaties 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
640 

now where the money that we put through this Congress has to go 

to foreigners as well as to American citizens, I think that we have 

gone way in the wrong direction, and that needs to be addressed— 

Mr. GRAYSON. Well, that may well be true if—Mr. Chairman, I 

can respond briefly? 

Chairman GORDON. Okay. 

Mr. GRAYSON. That may well be true, that—it may well be true 

that we have gone too far, but, in fact, in many cases, that is the 

law. In fact, that is one of the fundamental purposes of many of 

these treaties. And what we are actually doing, if we pass something like this, is we are giving a blank check to foreign entities 

to come and to come to our court— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I don’t want to give any checks to the foreigners. You are the— 

Mr. GRAYSON. Well, I mean, it—once it is law, it is law, and if 

you do this, and you create a liability for us— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. It is— 

Mr. GRAYSON. —under the General Agreement on Tariffs and 

Trade, and under NAFTA and otherwise, it is— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well— 

Mr. GRAYSON. —too late to take it back. There are no— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yeah. 

Mr. GRAYSON. —do-overs in international law. And I think that 

at least it would be incumbent upon the Member to inquire into 

this possibility before offering such an amendment and giving us 

unlimited liability for the U.S. taxpayers. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I see. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Rohrabacher’s time has expired. If there 

is no further discussion, the vote is on Mr. Rohrabacher’s amendment. All in favor say aye. Opposed, no. The nos have it. The 

amendment is not agreed to. The next amendment on the roster is 

an amendment offered by the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher. You—are you ready to proceed with your— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I have a feeling that I am going to get the 

same reaction from this one, which just basically says that— 

Chairman GORDON. Just one second. The Clerk will— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 035, amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Rohrabacher of 

California. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading, and without objection, so ordered. I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, basically, I guess I am going to receive 

the same kind of reception, but, again, I didn’t expect it, because 

I expected this also to be quite non-controversial. This amendment 

requires that anyone receiving funding under the Competes Act to 

compete—I think that meant America Competes, although that 

wasn’t in there—Competes Act cannot use the money, and has to 

agree that he is not going to use the money, for development of 

technology to be used in manufacturing outside the United States. 

So if he is going to take the money, it can’t be used for manufacVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:57 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 00646 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
641 

turing outside the United States. And at that, I think it is common 

sense that we don’t give money to people who want to set up manufacturing facilities overseas in times like these. And, in fact, we do, 

and to be fair about it, there is lots of precedent for that. We actually have the export/import bank and other institutions in our society that have been subsidizing the investment in manufacturing facilities overseas for decades, and that is why we are in the hole 

that we are in. And I would hope that the U.S. Competes Act does 

not proceed in that direction, but proceeds instead in making us 

more competitive, rather than building technologies to upgrade foreign manufacturing. Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. Once again, 

it—I know it is only with the best intentions that you introduce 

this amendment. I think there are some potential problems here 

that we need to keep in mind. First of all, we have a global market 

now, and many of our major corporations in this country have 

international operations already because it is necessary whether— 

when they are selling goods in another country, whether it is next 

day type of service, or whatever it might be. So we would, I am 

afraid, not allow our U.S. companies to have the best manufacturing ability elsewhere to compete and so I think that we would 

be harming ourselves with this. And if there is no further discussion, then the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor of the 

amendment say aye. Those opposed, no. The no’s have it, and the 

amendment is not agreed to. The gentleman from California, Mr. 

Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I have an amendment at the desk, and I am 

noting that I haven’t called any roll call votes on these other votes. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment 036, amendment to the amendment in 

the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Rohrabacher of California. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the gentleman for five minutes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, this amendment says that anyone who 

has infringed, and has been found guilty of infringing on the patent 

rights of others, cannot receive funding under the U.S. COMPETES 

Act. And I will have to admit that it doesn’t say that any U.S. Citizen who has infringed, so—what I am trying to do is just thieves, 

but I will have to admit that it is aimed at any thief. And if there 

are foreign thieves that come in and want to steal from our citizens, their patent rights, I don’t know if that is going to actually 

prevent them from getting this money as well. But let just say, in 

principle, one of my amendments is that if you have infringed on 

someone else’s patent and you have been found guilt of that, we 

should not be giving you money to develop your technology. Let us 

not finance thieves. This should be the motto. 

Chairman GORDON. The Chairman recognizes himself. In principle, you are absolutely correct, Mr. Rohrabacher. Unfortunately, 

in practice, some of the—there are what you might call—it 

wouldn’t be coincidental, but minor infringements that were not intended. And let me—so let me tell you, if this would go—if this 

amendment were in effect, Apple, Microsoft, Honeywell, IBM, 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
642 

Montsanto, ADM, Dow, Dupont, General Electric and others would 

not be eligible. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. They shouldn’t be eligible. We are talking 

about people who can afford to have their—pay for their own research. 

Chairman GORDON. But our country would be worse off if we did 

not have these companies able to export and bring back that revenue here. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But they can pay for their own thing. I mean, 

why should we be giving those huge corporations the money? They 

have got their own money. This is supposed to be aimed at people 

who cannot get money for their—for very high risk propositions 

and things in ARPA and this. But all this Federal money that goes 

every place, it is not supposed to go to our biggest corporations, 

whether it is NIST or whether it is ARPA–E or any of these other 

things. We are not subsidizing big corporations, are we? We are 

trying to basically further science. So if they have infringed upon— 

those big corporations have infringed on little guys’ patents, hey, 

let us give them the incentive not to infringe— 

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —on the little guys’ patents. 

Mr. BAIRD. Will the gentleman yield? 

Chairman GORDON. Dr. Baird is recognized. 

Mr. BAIRD. I mean, let us step back for a second. Again, I am 

a strong proponent of intellectual property rights. I know the gentleman has worked with some brilliant inventors and—who depend 

on that, and so I support the intent of that. Protecting intellectual 

property rights is vital. The challenge, however, is twofold. One, it 

occasionally happens that ultimately an infringement case goes 

against the company, and they didn’t willfully—they didn’t say, let 

us go steal an intellectual property right. A judge ruled that there 

was a—that somebody already held that patent, and you somehow 

violated the patent, okay? But under this, I think, if that is the 

case, then you could be ruled out. Second point is, this is not just 

about ARPA–E. This is about the entire—as I read it, this is about 

all the span of NSF activities. Let us suppose, for example, that 

NSF is working on a major project, a mega science project, and 

they need the latest—I mean, the gentleman is a strong advocate 

of nuclear power. Well, GE builds things like magnets and containment vessels, et cetera. If we are doing research on nuclear power, 

and if GE is the prime contractor that supplies those, but the mere 

fact that at some point in its career GE had a patent infringement 

case that went against it, GE now can’t supply. So who the heck 

is going to supply it? Certainly not a French company, or a Japanese. I mean, the problem is it is overly broad. The gentleman is 

absolutely right that we have to defend intellectual property rights. 

He is absolutely right, and I think this committee intends to take 

up measures of that—towards that end, but I just think this is so 

broad that it would actually profoundly harm our competitiveness 

and virtually paralyze a whole lot of, you know, if you can’t work 

with Microsoft, for example, and national security of the computer 

systems, if you can’t work with Apple on that, if you can’t work 

with GE on energy, if you can’t work with Montsanto on a host of 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
643 

chemical products that—my goodness gracious, we are going to 

freeze out an awful lot of productive America— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —yield at that point? 

Mr. BAIRD. That would be something I would yield, so I will yield 

back. I thank the gentleman. 

Chairman GORDON. If it is my time, I yield to you. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I think the gentleman has a point, and perhaps the legislation should say that they have found—been found 

guilty of intentionally infringing on someone’s patent rights. And 

not all infringement cases are based on the idea that someone has 

intentionally done this, but they have—there has been an infringement without an intent to do so. So that definition is—I accept that 

criticism. I—when I—when my amendment goes down in flames, I 

will think about that when I write the next one, but let me just 

note that, in terms of these big companies that you are talking 

about, I think one of the big problems we have is that we are trying to mold our efforts towards these huge mega corporations, and 

that is not where innovation in this country comes from. That is 

not what the—what is going to bring us to a higher level of prosperity and competition and competitiveness in this world. These big 

companies are not—frankly, I think that we have got to make sure 

that when we are doing these things we are developing policies 

that rein these companies in, rather than subsidize them in their 

current status of basically dominating whole segments of our country. So I am—I think you have made a good point, and so I will 

withdraw my amendment at this time because it does not include 

the word intentional infringement. Thank you. 

Chairman GORDON. You could have done that earlier. The next 

amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher. Are you ready to proceed 

with your amendment? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. Now, let us—this may be something that— 

Chairman GORDON. You are getting closer. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —can accept. I have an amendment at the 

desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 037, amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Rohrabacher of 

California. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain the amendment. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. Basically this amendment apportions 

the intellectual property rights when we are involved with these 

activities with various corporations, and various individuals, that— 

it apportions the intellectual property rights that comes out of research projects and these various programs that we are talking 

about, it apportions the rights to the granting agency, meaning the 

agency that—the Federal Government—well, then the U.S. taxpayers, via that agency, will then own a portion of the intellectual 

property rights that is in direct proportion to the overall funding 

of the project. So if—for example, if the Federal government provides 20 percent of a project’s funding, the American taxpayer then 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
644 

will have 20 percent of the value, in terms of the intellectual property rights, resulting from that technology. I—it seems to me, 

again, whether—especially when we are talking about these big 

corporations, we should not just be giving money away to people 

like this, and there should be a payback for us. And if indeed we 

are involved with helping develop some fantastic new technology 

that helps us compete, but at the same time makes an entity like 

General Electric or someone else billons of dollars because the intellectual property rights now are of great value, why shouldn’t the 

American taxpayer—if we have subsidized that whole operation 

and the development of that product and that new technology, why 

shouldn’t we get the portion—a portion of that? We should be—and 

that is all my amendment does. I think it makes sense, and maybe 

this will resonate more on the other side of the aisle than my other 

amendment. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Will the gentleman yield for a question? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I certainly will. 

Mr. GRAYSON. What happens if this amendment is not passed? 

What is the apportionment if it is not passed? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I am not sure. 

Chairman GORDON. Chairman yields to himself. There is nobody 

here with a truer heart than you, Mr. Rohrabacher, and I mean 

that. You are trying to do the right thing, and I think you are 

doing the right thing. Let me tell you what I think is the potential 

problem on this situation, and that is that there are two major 

laws that deal with these, Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act and the Bayh-Dole Act. And I understand that Mr. Wu is 

going to take up at least hearings, and hopefully potentially legislation, on these in a—on a more comprehensive basis later, and I 

think that it would be better off, you know, to do this on a comprehensive basis with, you know, after we have the hearings, rather than a single shot here. But clearly you raise a very significant 

concern. And I— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I— 

Chairman GORDON. —yield to— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I am glad I am—I am glad the Chairman 

thinks it is a significant concern. That is why I would like to make 

sure it is in the legislation. 

Chairman GORDON. Okay. So if there is no further—oh, Ms. Edwards is recognized. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Well, I didn’t think I would see the day, Mr. Rohrabacher, but you have touched a kind nerve of mine here, because 

I am very sympathetic— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. 

Ms. EDWARDS. —on this. I don’t— 

Mr. HALL. Let me tell you something, she is good help too—Rohrabacher. 

Ms. EDWARDS. I am concerned that in instances where the Federal government puts up all the money and a lot of the risk and 

the taxpayers get really none of the benefit. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Nonetheless, though, I would like to deal with it— 

I would like to deal with it in a much more comprehensive way, 

because it isn’t just here that that happens. Happens all the time, 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
645 

and all throughout our agencies and our research institutions. And 

then there is a lot of profit to be made off of that, which we could 

actually funnel back into— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yeah. 

Ms. EDWARDS. —research. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Um-hum. 

Ms. EDWARDS. So my commitment, while I am not going to support this here because I think it does deserve much more comprehensive consideration, I would look forward to working with you 

to deal with this in a way that enables taxpayers to retrieve the 

benefit of their investment in the same way that corporations get 

the benefit of their—those investments. And so I think you for offering the amendment, and I think you raise a really strong point 

on behalf of the taxpayers, and I look forwards to working with 

you. Thank you. With that, I yield. 

Chairman GORDON. If there is no further discussion, the vote is 

on the motion. All in favor of the motion, say aye. Opposed no. The 

nos have it, and Mr.— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a recorded 

vote on that. 

Chairman GORDON. And you will get it. The clerk will call the 

roll. 

The CLERK. Chairman Gordon? 

Chairman GORDON. No. 

The CLERK. Chairman Gordon votes no. Mr. Costello? 

Mr. COSTELLO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Costello votes no. Ms. Johnson? 

Ms. JOHNSON. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Johnson votes no? Okay. Ms. Woolsey? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Woolsey votes no. Mr. Wu? 

Mr. WU. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wu votes no. Mr. Baird? 

Mr. BAIRD. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Baird votes no. Mr. Miller? 

Mr. MILLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Miller votes no. Mr. Lipinski? 

Mr. LIPINSKI. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lipinski votes no. Ms. Giffords? 

Ms. GIFFORDS. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Giffords votes no. Ms. Edwards? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Fudge? 

Ms. FUDGE. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Fudge votes no. Mr. Luja ́n? 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Luja ́n votes no. Mr. Tonko? 

Mr. TONKO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Tonko votes no. Mr. Garamendi? 

Mr. GARAMENDI. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Garamendi votes no. Mr. Rothman? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Matheson? 

Mr. MATHESON. No. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
646 

The CLERK. Mr. Matheson votes no. Mr. Davis? 

Mr. DAVIS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Davis votes no. Mr. Chandler? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Carnahan? 

Mr. CARNAHAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Carnahan votes no. Mr. Hill? 

Mr. HILL. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hill votes no. Mr. Mitchell? 

Mr. MITCHELL. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Mitchell votes no. Mr. Wilson? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mrs. Dahlkemper? 

Mrs. DAHLKEMPER. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Dahlkemper votes no. Mr. Grayson? 

Mr. GRAYSON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Grayson votes no. Ms. Kosmas? 

Ms. KOSMAS. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Kosmas votes no. Mr. Peters? 

Mr. PETERS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Peters vote no. Mr. Hall? 

Mr. HALL. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hall votes aye. Mr. Sensenbrenner? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Lamar Smith? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye. Mr. Bartlett? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers? 

Mr. EHLERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers votes aye. Mr. Lucas? 

Mr. LUCAS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lucas votes aye. Mrs. Biggert? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Akin? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer? 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer votes aye. Mr. Inglis? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. McCaul? 

Mr. MCCAUL. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. McCaul votes aye. Mr. Diaz-Balart? 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Diaz-Balart votes aye. Mr. Bilbray? 

Mr. BILBRAY. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. I vote aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bilbray votes aye. Mr. Adrian Smith? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Broun? 

Mr. BROUN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Broun votes aye. Mr. Olson? 

Mr. OLSON. Aye. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
647 

The CLERK. Mr. Olson votes aye. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman GORDON. Is there anyone whose vote—Ms. Edwards? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Edwards votes aye. 

Chairman GORDON. Is there—well, Mrs. Biggert? 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Biggert votes aye. 

Chairman GORDON. —recoded? If not, the clerk will record the 

vote—or report the vote. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, 12 members vote aye, and 22 members vote no. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
648 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116e.eps
649 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you. The next amendment on the roster—oh, the amendment has not passed. The next amendment on 

the roster is an amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia, 

Dr. Broun. Let me say that Dr. Broun is—told me he wants to be 

brief, but he wants to have a recorded vote, so those that are here 

may want to stay here. Are you ready to proceed with your amendment? 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I have an amendment at the desk 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 028, amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. Recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment would 

simply streamline the overall COMPETES program by removing 

the new programs. In these tough economic times we can’t do everything that we want to do, so we need to prioritize our resources. 

The amendment prioritizes core research at the three priority agencies and gives them substantial increases, which has long been the 

top recommendation of the science and business community. I am 

concerned about the new program’s redundancy with other existing 

programs. For example, the loan guarantees are similar to the 

Small Business Administration’s loan guarantee program for which 

manufacturers are eligible. Also, the Hubs appear to be redundant 

with existing DOE activities. Specifically, the FY 2011 budget proposes $34 million for a hub on batteries and energy storage, but 

EERE’s [Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy]budget 

for energy storage in same year, FY 2011, is $94 million on top of 

the $1.9 billion that it received in the stimulus for vehicle battery 

manufacturing grants. ARPA–E has an explicit solicitation for energy storage projects. There are at least five Energy Frontier Research Centers [EFRCs] funded by the Office of Science that are 

working on energy storage. And fourthly, the Office of Electricity 

Delivery and the loan guarantee program both support energy storage and battery development activities. So why do we need this activity funded by a fifth program, and why do we need so many different entities pursuing the same technology? Eliminating the new 

loan guarantee and Hubs program alone would reduce the authorized amounts in the bill by over $1 billion, 250 million for the loan 

guarantees and 850 million for the Hubs. Additionally, removing 

the prize awards in Section 228, 12 million over three years of the 

pilot program, an innovative services initiative in Section 406, no 

cost, the bio-research program in Section 407, and the regional innovation program, such sums in Section 503, would further reduce 

the authorization levels and promote better fiscal management. As 

I have said before, our deficits are projected to remain above $1 

trillion for the foreseeable future, and our debt held by the public 

is ever growing. Additionally, this reauthorization goes beyond the 

President’s request. It only makes good financial sense to re-examine this reauthorization and not invest in any new spending on 

new programs until our financial house gets back into better shape. 

I urge the Committee to support this amendment so that we can 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
650 

be examples of fiscal responsibility not only within this committee, 

but for other committees, and lead by example. Mr. Chairman, I 

thank you for allowing me to discuss this amendment. I have no 

misconceptions about the final result of the vote. Thus, I suggest 

to the committee Chairman that we dispense with any further discussion, call the question and proceed with a recorded vote, and I 

so move. 

Chairman GORDON. Always try to serve you. The clerk will call 

the roll. 

The CLERK. Chairman Gordon? 

Chairman GORDON. No. 

The CLERK. Chairman Gordon votes no. Mr. Costello? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Johnson? 

Ms. JOHNSON. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Johnson votes no. Ms. Woolsey? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Woolsey votes no. Mr. Wu? 

Mr. WU. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wu votes no. Mr. Baird? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Miller? 

Mr. MILLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Miller votes no. Mr. Lipinski? 

Mr. LIPINSKI. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lipinski votes no. Ms. Giffords? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Edwards? 

Ms. EDWARDS. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Edwards votes no. Ms. Fudge? 

Ms. FUDGE. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Fudge votes no. Mr. Luja ́n? 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Luja ́n votes no. Mr. Tonko? 

Mr. TONKO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Tonko votes no. Mr. Garamendi? 

Mr. GARAMENDI. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Garamendi votes no. Mr. Rothman? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Matheson? 

Mr. MATHESON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Matheson votes no. Mr. Davis? 

Mr. DAVIS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Davis votes no. Mr. Chandler? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Carnahan? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Hill? 

Mr. HILL. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hill votes no. Mr. Mitchell? 

Mr. MITCHELL. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Mitchell votes no. Mr. Wilson? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mrs. Dahlkemper? 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
651 

Mrs. DAHLKEMPER. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Dahlkemper votes no. Mr. Grayson? 

Mr. GRAYSON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Grayson votes no. Ms. Kosmas? 

Ms. KOSMAS. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Kosmas votes no. Mr. Peters? 

Mr. PETERS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Peters votes no. Mr. Hall? 

Mr. HALL. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hall votes aye. Mr. Sensenbrenner? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Lamar Smith? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye. Mr. Bartlett? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Lucas? 

Mr. LUCAS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lucas votes aye. Mrs. Biggert? 

Mrs. BIGGERT. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Biggert votes no. Mr. Akin? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer? 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer votes aye. Mr. Inglis? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. McCaul? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Diaz-Balart? 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Diaz-Balart votes aye. Mr. Bilbray? 

Mr. BILBRAY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bilbray votes aye. Mr. Adrian Smith? 

Mr. SMITH OF NEBRASKA. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Adrian Smith votes aye. Mr. Broun? 

Mr. BROUN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Broun votes aye. Mr. Olson? 

Mr. OLSON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Olson votes aye. 

Chairman GORDON. Is there anyone who has not been recorded? 

Mr. Costello? 

Mr. COSTELLO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Costello votes no. 

Chairman GORDON. Dr. Baird? 

Mr. BAIRD. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Baird votes no. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Chandler? 

Mr. CHANDLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chandler votes no. 

Chairman GORDON. Ms. Giffords? 

Ms. GIFFORDS. No. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
652 

The CLERK. Ms.— 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Carnahan? 

Mr. CARNAHAN. No. 

Chairman GORDON. If there is no one else, the clerk will tally the 

vote, following which there are two additional votes that—I mean 

two additional amendments that should be accepted. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, nine members vote aye and 25 members vote no. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
653 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116f.eps
654 

Chairman GORDON. The amendment is not accepted. The next 

amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by the gentleman from California, Mr. Bilbray, along with the gentleman 

from California, Mr. Garamendi. 

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that you recognize the 

gentleman from California to present the—this amendment. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 042, amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Bilbray of California and Mr. Garamendi of California. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. There—I recognize the 

gentleman for five minutes to explain the amendment. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman and Members, this amendment 

would direct the Department to engage in fusion research. Reliable, 

safe, sustainable, it adds one additional new program, which I 

would suggest the previous amendment would not have allowed. 

But, here we got with a new program that I think is very important. Nuclear power, in all of its various forms, are part of the solutions for the future. I ask for an aye vote. 

Chairman GORDON. If there is no further discussion after that 

articulate presentation, then the—all those in favor of the amendment, say aye. Opposed no. The motion is—or the amendment is 

accepted. The final amendment is an amendment by Dr. Bartlett, 

who will be introduced by Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. —all new programs, then you put in an amendment 

for a new program. Why not? 

Chairman GORDON. Are you ready to proceed, Mr. Hall? 

Mr. HALL. I am ready to proceed, and I have an amendment in 

front of me. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 021, amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Bartlett of Maryland. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain the amendment. 

Mr. HALL. I will not take five minutes. This amendment is needed to reflect the intent of ARPA–E’s Director. This amendment 

clarifies that funding for events, such as those for grants, finalists, 

and other outreach programs would be taken from the five percent 

set aside for tech transfers. 

Chairman GORDON. Very well said. If there is no further amendment—or no further discussion, the vote is on the motion—or on 

the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed no. The ayes have 

it. The amendment is agreed to. Are there any other amendments? 

If no, then the vote is on the amendment on the nature of a substitute on H.R. 5116, as amended. All those in favor would say aye. 

All those opposed, say no. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes 

have it. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman— 

Chairman GORDON. Do you want a vote— 

Mr. HALL. —on that, I would ask to— 

Chairman GORDON. You want to do this one a little bit later? 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
655 

Mr. HALL. I withdraw anything I have said in the last 30 seconds. 

Chairman GORDON. All right. The vote is on the bill as amended. 

All those in favor will say aye. All those opposed will say no. In 

the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. Did—Mr.—did you like 

to—Mr. Hall? 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask for a recorded vote. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Chairman Gordon? 

Chairman GORDON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Chairman Gordon votes aye. Mr. Costello? 

Mr. COSTELLO. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Costello votes aye. Ms. Johnson? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Johnson votes aye. Ms. Woolsey? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Woolsey votes aye. Mr. Wu? 

Mr. WU. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wu votes aye. Mr. Baird? 

Mr. BAIRD. Consistent with the wishes of the American Chamber 

of Congress, the National Association of Manufacturers, and a host 

of others—I will vote aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Baird votes aye. Mr. Miller? 

Mr. MILLER. Why not? 

The CLERK. Mr. Miller votes aye. Mr. Lipinski? 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lipinski votes aye. Ms. Giffords? 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Giffords votes aye. Ms. Edwards? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Edwards votes aye. Ms. Fudge? 

Ms. FUDGE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Fudge votes aye. Mr. Luja ́n? 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Luja ́n votes aye. Mr. Tonko? 

Mr. TONKO. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Tonko votes aye. Mr. Garamendi? 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Garmendi votes aye. Mr. Rothman? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Matheson? 

Mr. MATHESON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Matheson votes aye. Mr. Davis? 

Mr. DAVIS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Davis votes aye. Mr. Chandler? 

Mr. CHANDLER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chandler votes aye. Mr. Carnahan? 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Carnahan votes aye. Mr. Hill? 

Mr. HILL. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hill votes aye. Mr. Mitchell? 

Mr. MITCHELL. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Mitchell votes aye. Mr. Wilson? 

[No response.] 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
656 

The CLERK. Mrs. Dahlkemper? 

Mrs. DAHLKEMPER. [No audible response.] 

The CLERK. Mrs. Dahlkemper votes aye. Mr. Grayson? 

Mr. GRAYSON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Grayson votes aye. Ms. Kosmas? 

Ms. KOSMAS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Kosmas votes aye. Mr. Peters? 

Mr. PETERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Peters votes aye. Mr. Hall? 

Mr. HALL. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hall votes no. Mr. Sensenbrenner? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Lamar Smith? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. Mr. Bartlett? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers? 

Mr. EHLERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers votes aye. Mr. Lucas? 

Mr. LUCAS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lucas votes no. Mrs. Biggert? 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Biggert votes aye. Mr. Akin? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Is he here? Mr. Neugebauer? 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer votes no. Mr. Inglis? 

Mr. INGLIS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis votes aye. Mr. McCaul? 

Mr. MCCAUL. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. McCaul votes aye. Mr. Diaz-Balart? 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Diaz-Balart votes no. Mr. Bilbray? 

Mr. BILBRAY. Despite the Chamber of Commerce position, 

Bilbray votes aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bilbray votes aye. Mr. Adrian Smith? 

Mr. SMITH OF NEBRASKA. No.. 

The CLERK. Mr. Adrian Smith votes no. Mr. Broun? 

Mr. BROUN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Broun votes no. Mr. Olson? 

Mr. OLSON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Olson votes no. 

Chairman GORDON. Is there anyone who was not recorded? If 

not, the clerk will report. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, while they are counting, can I say 

something? 

Chairman GORDON. Yes, Ms. Woolsey. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. We are very proud of you. Thank you very much. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you. I just keep, you know, this is not 

a eulogy. I am not dead yet. We have more to do. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, 31 members vote aye and six members vote no. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
657 

Chairman GORDON. The bill—the ayes have it. The motion is carried. I recognize myself to offer a motion. I move the committee favorably report H.R. 5116, as amended, to the House, with the recommendation that the bill does pass. Furthermore, I move that the 

staff be instructed to prepare the legislative report and 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. 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, and the bill is favorably reported. 

Let me just—if there is a question about that vote, how do—do you 

want to resolve that? 

The CLERK. I can— 

Chairman GORDON. Let us recount. Let us be absolutely sure. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, 29 members vote aye, and seven— 

and eight members vote no. 

Chairman GORDON. Okay. Let us—say it again, please, so we all 

know. 

The CLERK. 29 vote aye and eight— 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
658 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116g.eps
659 

Chairman GORDON. Is that—okay. All right. Thanks for the oversight on that. I am glad that we could get it correct. The ayes have 

it, and the bill is favorably reported. Without objection, the motion 

is considered to be laid on the table. Members will have two subsequent calendar days in which to submit supplemental, Minority 

and additional views on the measure. Before we adjourn, let me 

thank everybody very sincerely. It has been a long day. You have 

been a part of history, and I very much appreciate you being here. 

And I want thank—now we conclude this markup. 

[Whereupon, at 6:55 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

Appendix: 

H.R. 5116, SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS, AMENDMENT ROSTER


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
660 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR51161a.eps
661 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR51162a.eps
662 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR51163a.eps
663 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR51164a.eps
664 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR51165a.eps
665 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR51166a.eps
666 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR51167a.eps
667 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR51168a.eps
668 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR51169a.eps
669 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511610a.eps
670 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511611a.eps
671 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511612a.eps
672 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511613a.eps
673 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511614a.eps
674 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511615a.eps
675 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511616a.eps
676 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511999a.eps
677 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511618a.eps
678 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511619a.eps
679 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511620a.eps
680 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511621a.eps
681 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511622a.eps
682 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511623a.eps
683 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511624a.eps
684 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511625a.eps
685 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511626a.eps
686 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511627a.eps
687 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511628a.eps
688 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511629a.eps
689 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511630a.eps
690 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511631a.eps
691 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511632a.eps
692 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511633a.eps
693 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511634a.eps
694 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511635a.eps
695 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511636a.eps
696 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511637a.eps
697 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511638a.eps
698 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511639a.eps
699 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511640a.eps
700 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511641a.eps
701 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511642a.eps
702 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511643a.eps
703 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511644a.eps
704 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511645a.eps
705 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511646a.eps
706 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511647a.eps
707 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511648a.eps
708 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511649a.eps
709 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511650a.eps
710 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511651a.eps
711 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511652a.eps
712 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511653a.eps
713 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511654a.eps
714 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511655a.eps
715 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511656a.eps
716 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511657a.eps
717 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511658a.eps
718 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511659a.eps
719 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511660a.eps
720 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511661a.eps
721 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511662a.eps
722 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511663a.eps
723 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511664a.eps
724 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511665a.eps
725 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511666a.eps
726 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511667a.eps
727 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511668a.eps
728 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511669a.eps
729 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511670a.eps
730 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511671a.eps
731 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511672a.eps
732 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511673a.eps
733 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511674a.eps
734 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511675a.eps
735 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511676a.eps
736 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511677a.eps
737 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511678a.eps
738 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511679a.eps
739 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511680a.eps
740 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511681a.eps
741 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511682a.eps
742 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511683a.eps
743 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511684a.eps
744 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511685a.eps
745 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511686a.eps
746 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511687a.eps
747 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511688a.eps
748 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511689a.eps
749 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511690a.eps
750 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511691a.eps
751 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511692a.eps
752 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511693a.eps
753 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511694a.eps
754 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511695a.eps
755 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511696a.eps
756 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511697a.eps
757 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511698a.eps
758 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511699a.eps
759 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116100a.eps
760 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116101a.eps
761 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116102a.eps
762 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116103a.eps
763 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116104a.eps
764 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116105a.eps
765 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116106a.eps
766 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116107a.eps
767 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116108a.eps
768 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116109a.eps
769 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116110a.eps
770 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116111a.eps
771 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116112a.eps
772 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116113a.eps
773 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116114a.eps
774 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116115a.eps
775 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116116a.eps
776 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511617a.eps
777 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116118a.eps
778 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116119a.eps
779 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116120a.eps
780 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116121a.eps
781 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116122a.eps
782 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116123a.eps
783 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116124a.eps
784 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116125a.eps
785 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116126a.eps
786 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116127a.eps
787 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116128a.eps
788 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116129a.eps
789 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116130a.eps
790 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116131a.eps
791 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116132a.eps
792 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116133a.eps
793 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116134a.eps
794 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116135a.eps
795 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116136a.eps
796 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116137a.eps
797 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116138a.eps
798 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116139a.eps
799 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116140a.eps
800 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116141a.eps
801 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116142a.eps
802 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116143a.eps
803 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116144a.eps
804 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116145a.eps
805 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116146a.eps
806 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116147a.eps
807 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116148a.eps
808 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116149a.eps
809 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116150a.eps
810 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116151a.eps
811 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116152a.eps
812 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116153a.eps
813 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116154a.eps
814 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116155a.eps
815 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116156a.eps
816 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116157a.eps
817 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116158a.eps
818 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116159a.eps
819 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116160a.eps
820 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116161a.eps
821 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116162a.eps
822 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116163a.eps
823 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116164a.eps
824 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116166a.eps
825 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116166a.eps
826 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116167a.eps
827 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116168a.eps
828 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116169a.eps
829 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116170a.eps
830 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116171a.eps
831 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116172a.eps
832 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116173a.eps
833 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116174a.eps
834 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116175a.eps
835 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116176a.eps
836 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116177a.eps
837 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116178a.eps
838 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116179a.eps
839 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116180a.eps
840 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116181a.eps
841 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116182a.eps
842 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116183a.eps
843 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116184a.eps
844 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116185a.eps
845 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116186a.eps
846 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116187a.eps
847 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116188a.eps
848 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116189a.eps
849 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116190a.eps
850 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116191a.eps
851 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116192a.eps
852 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116193a.eps
853 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116194a.eps
854 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116195a.eps
855 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116196a.eps
856 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116197a.eps
857 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116198a.eps
858 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116199a.eps
859 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116200a.eps
860 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116201a.eps
861 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116202a.eps
862 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116203a.eps
863 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116204a.eps
864 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116205a.eps
865 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116206a.eps
866 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116207a.eps
867 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116208a.eps
868 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116209a.eps
869 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116210a.eps
870 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116211a.eps
871 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116212a.eps
872 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116213a.eps
873 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116214a.eps
874 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116215a.eps
875 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116216a.eps
876 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116217a.eps
877 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116218a.eps
878 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116219a.eps
879 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116220a.eps
880 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116221a.eps
881 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116222a.eps
882 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR51161b.eps
883 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR51162b.eps
884 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR51163b.eps
885 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR51164b.eps
886 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR51165b.eps
887 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR51166b.eps
888 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR51167b.eps
889 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR51168b.eps
890 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR51169b.eps
891 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511610b.eps
892 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511611b.eps
893 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511612b.eps
894 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511613b.eps
895 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511614b.eps
896 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511615b.eps
897 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511616b.eps
898 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511617b.eps
899 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511618b.eps
900 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511619b.eps
901 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511620b.eps
902 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511621b.eps
903 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511622b.eps
904 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511623b.eps
905 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511624b.eps
906 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511625b.eps
907 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511626b.eps
908 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511627b.eps
909 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511628b.eps
910 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511629b.eps
911 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511630b.eps
912 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511631b.eps
913 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511632b.eps
914 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511633b.eps
915 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511634b.eps
916 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511635b.eps
917 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511636b.eps
918 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511637b.eps
919 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511638b.eps
920 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511639b.eps
921 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511640b.eps
922 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511641b.eps
923 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511642b.eps
924 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511643b.eps
925 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511644b.eps
926 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511645b.eps
927 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511646b.eps
928 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511647b.eps
929 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511648b.eps
930 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511649b.eps
931 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511650b.eps
932 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511651b.eps
933 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511652b.eps
934 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511653b.eps
935 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511654b.eps
936 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511655b.eps
937 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511656b.eps
938 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511657b.eps
939 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511658b.eps
940 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511659b.eps
941 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511660b.eps
942 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511661b.eps
943 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511662b.eps
944 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511663b.eps
945 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511664b.eps
946 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511665b.eps
947 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511666b.eps
948 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511667b.eps
949 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511668b.eps
950 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511669b.eps
951 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511670b.eps
952 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511671b.eps
953 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511672b.eps
954 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511673b.eps
955 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511674b.eps
956 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511675b.eps
957 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511676b.eps
958 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511677b.eps
959 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511678b.eps
960 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511679b.eps
961 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511680b.eps
962 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511681b.eps
963 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511682b.eps
964 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511683b.eps
965 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511684b.eps
966 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511685b.eps
967 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511686b.eps
968 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511687b.eps
969 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511688b.eps
970 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511689b.eps
971 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511690b.eps
972 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511691b.eps
973 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511692b.eps
974 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511693b.eps
975 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511694b.eps
976 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511695b.eps
977 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511696b.eps
978 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511697b.eps
979 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511698b.eps
980 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511699b.eps
981 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116100b.eps
982 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116101b.eps
983 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116102b.eps
984 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116103b.eps
985 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116104b.eps
986 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116105b.eps
987 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116106b.eps
988 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116107b.eps
989 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116108b.eps
990 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116109b.eps
991 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116110b.eps
992 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116111b.eps
993 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116112b.eps
994 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116113b.eps
995 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116114b.eps
996 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116115b.eps
997 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116116b.eps
998 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116117b.eps
999 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116118b.eps
1000 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116119b.eps
1001 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116120b.eps
1002 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116121b.eps
1003 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116122b.eps
1004 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116123b.eps
1005 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116124b.eps
1006 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116125b.eps
1007 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116126b.eps
1008 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116127b.eps
1009 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116128b.eps
1010 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116129b.eps
1011 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116130b.eps
1012 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116131b.eps
1013 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116132b.eps
1014 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116133b.eps
1015 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116134b.eps
1016 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116135b.eps
1017 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116136b.eps
1018 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116137b.eps
1019 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116138b.eps
1020 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116139b.eps
1021 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116140b.eps
1022 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116141b.eps
1023 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116142b.eps
1024 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116143b.eps
1025 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116144b.eps
1026 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116145b.eps
1027 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116146b.eps
1028 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116147b.eps
1029 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116148b.eps
1030 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116149b.eps
1031 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116150b.eps
1032 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116151b.eps
1033 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116152b.eps
1034 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116153b.eps
1035 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116154b.eps
1036 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116155b.eps
1037 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116156b.eps
1038 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116157b.eps
1039 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116158b.eps
1040 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116159b.eps
1041 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116160b.eps
1042 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116161b.eps
1043 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116162b.eps
1044 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116163b.eps
1045 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116164b.eps
1046 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116165b.eps
1047 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116166b.eps
1048 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116167b.eps
1049 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116168b.eps
1050 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116169b.eps
1051 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116170b.eps
1052 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116171b.eps
1053 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116172b.eps
1054 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116173b.eps
1055 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116174b.eps
1056 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116175b.eps
1057 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116176b.eps
1058 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116177b.eps
1059 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116178b.eps
1060 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116179b.eps
1061 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116180b.eps
1062 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116181b.eps
1063 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116182b.eps
1064 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116183b.eps
1065 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116184b.eps
1066 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116185b.eps
1067 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116186b.eps
1068 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116187b.eps
1069 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116188b.eps
1070 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116189b.eps
1071 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116190b.eps
1072 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116191b.eps
1073 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116192b.eps
1074 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116193b.eps
1075 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116194b.eps
1076 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116195b.eps
1077 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116196b.eps
1078 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116197b.eps
1079 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116198b.eps
1080 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116199b.eps
1081 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116200b.eps
1082 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116201b.eps
1083 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116202b.eps
1084 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116203b.eps
1085 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116204b.eps
1086 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116205b.eps
1087 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116206b.eps
1088 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116207b.eps
1089 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116208b.eps
1090 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116209b.eps
1091 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116210b.eps
1092 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116211b.eps
1093 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116212b.eps
1094 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116213b.eps
1095 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116214b.eps
1096 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116215b.eps
1097 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116216b.eps
1098 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116217b.eps
1099 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116218b.eps
1100 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116219b.eps
1101 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116220b.eps
1102 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116221b.eps
1103 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116222b.eps
1104 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116223b.eps
1105 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116224b.eps
1106 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116225b.eps
1107 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF

AMERICA COMPETES REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2010 

AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE

TITLE I—SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY 

SUBTITLE A—NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE AMENDMENTS 

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.—‘‘National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 

2010.’’ 

SEC. 102. NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY PROGRAM AMENDMENTS.—Modifies the NNI strategic plan to include the specification of: (1) near and long term 

objectives, (2) the timeframe for achieving near term objectives, (3) the metrics for 

measuring progress toward objectives, and (4) multi-agency funded projects in areas 

of significant economic and societal impacts authorized under section 105. Requires 

the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO) to (1) develop a public 

database for projects funded under the Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS), 

Education and Societal Dimensions, and Nanomanufacturing program component 

areas; (2) develop, maintain and publicize information about NNI supported nanotechnology facilities available for use by academia and industry; (3) to report annually on its current and future budget requirements. Revises the charge to the National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council for the content and scope of 

the triennial reviews of the NNI Program. 

SEC. 103. SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS OF NANOTECHNOLOGY.—Requires an 

OSTP associate director to fulfill the role of coordinator for the societal dimensions 

component of NNI, and assigns specific responsibilities and duties to such coordinator. Requires the Program to support formal and informal nanotechnology science 

education, including support for course development, and faculty professional development. Requires formation of an Education Working Group to coordinate, 

prioritize, and plan the educational activities funded under the NNI. 

SEC. 104. TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER.—Requires agencies supporting nanotechnology research facilities under the NNI to allow, and encourage, use of these facilities 

to assist companies in developing prototype products, devices, or processes for determining proof of concept. Requires agencies to encourage applications for support of 

nanotechnology projects under the SBIR, STTR, and TIP programs. Encourages the 

creation of industry liaison groups in all relevant industry sectors to foster technology transfer and to help guide the NNI research agenda. 

SEC. 105. RESEARCH IN AREAS OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE.—Requires the 

NNI to include support for large-scale nanotechnology research and development activities in application areas with potential for significant contributions to national 

economic competitiveness or other important societal benefits. 

SEC. 106. NANOMANUFACTURING RESEARCH.—Specifies specific areas of research and development under the Nanomanufacturing program component area. 

Requires the NNI Advisory Panel to review the adequacy of the funding level for 

the Nanomanufacturing program component area and its relevance to industry 

needs. 

SEC. 107. DEFINITIONS.—Defines terms used in the subtitle. 

SUBTITLE B—NETWORKING AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 

SEC. 111. SHORT TITLE.—‘‘Networking and Information Technology Research and 

Development Act of 2010’’. 

SEC. 112. PROGRAM PLANNING AND COORDINATION.—Requires the NITRD 

agencies to periodically assess the program contents and funding levels and to update the program accordingly. Requires the NITRD agencies to develop and periodically update (at 3-year intervals) a strategic plan for the program and requires an 

annual update on how the program activities planned and underway relate to the 

objectives specified in the strategic plan. 

SEC. 113. LARGE-SCALE RESEARCH IN AREAS OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE.—Authorizes the NITRD agencies to support large-scale, long-term, interdisciplinary research with the potential to make significant contributions to society 

and U.S. economic competitiveness and to encourage collaboration between at least 

two agencies as well as cost-sharing from non-Federal sources. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
1108 

SEC. 114. CYBER-PHYSICAL SYSTEMS AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT.— 

Requires the program to support research and development in cyber-physical systems; human-computer interactions, visualization, and information management. 

Requires the NCO Director to convene a university/industry task force to explore 

mechanisms for carrying out collaborative research and development activities for 

cyber-physical systems. 

SEC. 115. NATIONAL COORDINATION OFFICE.—Formally establishes the NCO; 

delineates the office’s responsibilities; mandates annual operating budgets; specifies 

the source of funding for the office (consistent with current practice); and stresses 

the role of the NCO in developing the strategic plan and in public outreach and 

communication with outside communities of interest. 

SEC. 116. IMPROVING NETWORKING AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 

EDUCATION.—Requires NSF use their programs to improve the teaching and 

learning of networking and information technology and encourage the participation 

of women and underrepresented minorities. 

SEC. 117. CONFORMING AND TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.—Makes conforming 

and technical changes to the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991. 

SUBTITLE C—OTHER OSTP PROVISIONS 

SEC. 121. FEDERAL SCIENTIFIC COLLECTIONS.—Requires the Office of Science 

and Technology Policy (OSTP), in consultation with relevant Federal agencies, to develop formal policies for the management and use of Federal scientific collections, 

including policies for the disposal of collections, and to create an online clearinghouse for information on the contents of and access to Federal scientific collections. 

SEC. 122. COORDINATION OF MANUFACTURING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.—Establishes an interagency committee under the National Science and 

Technology Council (NSTC) with responsibilities to plan and coordinate Federal programs and activities in manufacturing research and development and to develop of 

a strategic plan. 

SEC. 123. INTERAGENCY PUBLIC ACCESS COMMITTEE.—Establishes a working group under the NSTC to coordinate Federal science agency research and policies related to the dissemination and long-term stewardship of the results of Federally supported unclassified research, including digital data and peer-reviewed scholarly publications. 

TITLE II—NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.—The National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 

2010 

SUBTITLE A—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

SEC. 211. DEFINITIONS.—Provides definitions for terms used in this title. 

SEC. 212. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Authorizes $47.5 billion for 

the National Science Foundation (NSF) for fiscal years 2011–2015, including $38 billion for research and related activities (R&RA), $6.4 billion for education and 

human resources (EHR), and $1.2 billion for major research equipment and facilities 

construction (MREFC). 

SEC. 213. NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS.— 

Eliminates the cap on the number of professional staff for the National Science 

Board (‘‘the Board’’). Changes the date on which the Board’s biennial Science and 

Engineering Indicators is due to the President and Congress. Modifies the scope of 

reports the Board may submit to the President and Congress. Modifies audit requirement for Board adherence to the Sunshine Act. 

SEC. 214. BROADER IMPACTS REVIEW CRITERION.—Clarifies the intent of the 

Foundation’s Broader Impacts Review Criterion. Requires the Director to develop 

and implement a Foundation-wide policy that: includes a plan to educate Foundation staff, merit review panels, and grant applicants on the goals of the broader impacts review criterion; encourages colleges, universities and other organizations 

such as science museums to help NSF-funded investigators achieve the goals of the 

broader impacts review criterion through existing evidence-based programs and activities; and requires grant applicants to provide evidence of such institutional support for the portion of their proposal intended to satisfy the broader impact review 

criterion. 

SEC. 215. NATIONAL CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING STATISTICS.—Establishes the Foundation’s Division of Science Resource Statistics as the 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
1109 

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics and codifies its function as 

the central Federal clearinghouse for objective data on the scientific and engineering 

enterprise and the state of STEM education. 

SUBTITLE B—RESEARCH AND INNOVATION 

SEC. 221. SUPPORT FOR POTENTIALLY TRANSFORMATIVE RESEARCH.—Requires the Director to apply at least 5 percent of the agency’s research toward highrisk, high-reward basic research. Provide a definition for ‘‘high-risk, high-reward’’ 

and examples for how the Director may meet the 5 percent requirement. 

SEC. 222. FACILITATING INTERDISCIPLINARY COLLABORATIONS FOR NATIONAL NEEDS.—Requires the Director to provide awards for interdisciplinary research collaborations that are designed to address critical challenges to national security, competitiveness, and societal well-being. 

SEC. 223. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION MANUFACTURING RESEARCH.—Requires the Director to carry out a program to award competitive 

grants for manufacturing research. 

SEC. 224. STRENGTHENING INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH PARTNERSHIPS.— 

In cases where a research grant involves a partnership of colleges and universities, 

including a minority-serving institution or a predominately undergraduate institution, the Director is required to award funds to at least two of the institutions directly, including at least one minority-serving or predominately undergraduate institution. 

SEC. 225. NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD REPORT ON MID-SCALE INSTRUMENTATION.—Requires the Board to evaluate the need for mid-scale research instrumentation (instrumentation that falls between the Major Research Instrumentation 

program and the Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction program), 

and provide recommendations regarding how the Foundation can best address those 

needs. 

SEC. 226. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON OVERALL SUPPORT FOR RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE AT THE FOUNDATION.—Expresses the sense of Congress that 

the Foundation should strive to keep the percentage of the Foundation budget devoted to research infrastructure in the range of 24 to 27 percent, as recommended 

in the 2003 National Science Board report, ‘‘Science and Engineering Infrastructure 

for the 21st Century.’’ 

SEC. 227. PARTNERSHIPS FOR INNOVATION.—Requires the Director to carry 

out a program to support partnerships between institutions of higher education and 

private sector entities in order to promote innovation and increase the economic and 

social impact of the research. Gives priority to partnerships that involve one of the 

top 100 research institutions and either a minority-serving institution, a primarily 

undergraduate institution, or a community college. 

SEC. 228. PRIZE AWARDS.—Requires the Director to establish a 3-year pilot program to award innovation inducement cash prizes in research areas supported by 

the Foundation. 

SUBTITLE C—STEM EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE TRAINING 

SEC. 241. GRADUATE STUDENT SUPPORT.—Requires the Director to increase or 

decrease funding for the Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship 

(IGERT) program at the same rate as the Graduate Research Fellowship (GRF) program. Requires that at least half of the total funds for IGERT and GRF come from 

the R&RA account. Requires the Director to increase the current cost of education 

allowance for awards made through the GRF program by $1,500. 

SEC. 242. POSTDOCTORAL FELLOWSHIP IN STEM EDUCATION RESEARCH.—Requires the Director to establish a postdoctoral fellowship program to 

encourage recent doctoral degree graduates in the STEM fields to pursue STEM 

education research and become leaders in STEM education reform. 

SEC. 243. ROBERT NOYCE TEACHER SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM.—Amends current law to remove the requirement that the service obligation of scholarship recipients be performed in a high-need local education agency, and instead provides a 1 

year reduction of the service obligation for scholarship recipients who choose to perform their service in a high-need local education agency. Requires the Director to 

maintain a clearinghouse of information on teaching opportunities available in highneed local education agencies. Lowers the required amount of institutional matching 

for Noyce grants under Section 10A (master teachers and STEM professionals) from 

50 to 30 percent. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
1110 

SEC. 244. INSTITUTIONS SERVING PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES.—Ensures 

that institutions of higher education that are chartered to serve students with disabilities can benefit from STEM bridge programs and from research partnerships 

with major research universities funded by NSF. Clarifies that nothing in this section shall be construed to amend or otherwise affect any of the current statutory 

definitions for minority-serving institutions. 

SEC. 245. INSTITUTIONAL INTEGRATION.—Requires the Director to award 

grants to colleges and universities for the integration of Foundation funded projects 

at those institutions in order to increase collaboration across funded projects and 

expand the impact of such projects. 

SEC. 246. POSTDOCTORAL RESEARCH FELLOWSHIPS.—Requires the Director 

to establish a Foundation-wide postdoctoral research fellowship program, with priority given to proposals for interdisciplinary research and high-risk, high-reward research. 

SEC. 247. BROADENING PARTICIPATION TRAINING AND OUTREACH.—Requires the Director to provide education and training to Foundation staff and review 

panels on effective tools for increasing participation in STEM by underrepresented 

groups. 

SEC. 248. TRANSFORMING UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION IN STEM.—Requires the Director to award grants to colleges and universities to reform undergraduate STEM education in their institutions, and specifies that proposals must include evidence of institutional support for, and commitment to, the proposed reform 

effort. 

SEC. 249. 21ST CENTURY GRADUATE EDUCATION.—Requires the Director to 

award grants to institutions of higher education for the implementation or expansion of reforms in graduate STEM education that emphasize preparation for diverse 

STEM careers. 

SEC. 250. UNDERGRADUATE BROADENING PARTICIPATION PROGRAM.— 

Prohibits the Foundation from consolidating the Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities Undergraduate Program, the Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation program, and the Tribal Colleges and Universities Program into a single 

program in fiscal year 2011 (as proposed in the agency’s budget request). Requires 

the Director to develop and submit a plan to Congress clarifying the objectives and 

rationale prior to any consolidation of the programs. 

SEC. 251. GRAND CHALLENGES IN EDUCATION RESEARCH.—Requires NSF 

and the Department of Education (ED) to identify and prioritize grand challenges 

in research and development for preK–12 STEM education, and carry out and disseminate the results of such R&D. NSF and ED must issue a report to Congress 

outlining the grand challenges, the role of each agency in addressing the challenges, 

metrics for assessing progress toward meeting the challenges, how the agencies will 

disseminate the results of the research, and how the agencies will support the implementation of best practices. 

SEC. 252. RESEARCH EXPERIENCES FOR UNDERGRADUATES.—Requires the 

Director to award grants to institutions of higher education, nonprofit organizations, 

or consortia of such institutions and organizations, for sites designated to provide 

research experiences for 10 or more undergraduate STEM students. Requires that 

research grant recipients planning to include undergraduate students in carrying 

out their research request support for the undergraduate students as part of the research proposal itself rather than as a supplement to the research proposal. 

SEC. 253. LABORATORY SCIENCE PILOT PROGRAM.—Strikes the sunset clause 

for the Laboratory Science Pilot Program authorized in the 2007 COMPETES Act.– 

TITLE III—STEM EDUCATION 

SEC. 301. COORDINATION OF FEDERAL STEM EDUCATION.—Establishes an 

interagency committee to coordinate Federal programs and activities in support of 

STEM education. Requires this committee to develop a STEM education strategic 

plan to inform program and budget planning for agencies and to establish and maintain an inventory of federally sponsored STEM education activities, including documentation on program assessments. Requires the Director of OSTP to submit an annual report to Congress including a description and level of funding of the STEM 

education programs and activities of each participating Federal agency for the previous and current fiscal years. 

SEC. 302. ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON STEM EDUCATION.—Requires the President to establish an advisory committee on STEM education responsible for soliciting input from a variety of stakeholder groups in order to offer guidance to the 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
1111 

President on how to better align Federal programs with the needs of States and 

school districts, and to improve connectivity between public and private STEM education efforts. 

SEC. 303. STEM EDUCATION AT THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.—Clarifies 

the role of the Department in contributing to STEM education, including energy systems science and engineering education, at all levels. Specifies the kinds of STEM 

education programs and activities that the Department is authorized to carry out. 

Requires the Secretary to appoint or designate a Director of STEM education with 

responsibility to oversee and coordinate all STEM education programs and activities 

across the Department. Requires the Director to develop, implement, and update a 

STEM education strategic plan for the Department, and maintain an online inventory of STEM education programs at the Department. Requires the Secretary to consult and partner with the Department of Education and the National Science Foundation on STEM education activities, when appropriate. Requires the Secretary to 

award grants to colleges and universities to develop or expand the energy systems 

science and engineering education capabilities of the institution and provide support 

to graduate students pursuing such courses of study. 

TITLE IV-NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY 

SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.—National Institute of Standards and Technology Authorization Act of 2010 

SEC. 402. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Authorizes a total of $5.628 

billion for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for FY 2011 

through FY 2015. The total consists of authorization levels of $1.012 billion in FY 

2011, $1.035 billion in FY 2012, $1.137 billion in FY 2013, $1.188 billion in FY 

2014, and $1.256 billion in FY 2015. Includes within the total authorization a total 

of $3.495 billion for NIST labs for FY 2011 through FY 2015. The total for NIST 

labs consists of authorization levels of $620.0 million in FY 2011, $657.2 million in 

FY 2012, $696.7 million in FY 2013, $738.5 million in FY 2014, and $782.8 million 

in FY 2015. Includes within the total authorization a total of $589 million for construction and maintenance of facilities for FY 2011 through FY 2015. The total for 

construction and maintenance consists of authorization levels of $125 million for FY 

2011, $85 million for FY 2012, $122 million for FY 2013, $124 million for FY 2014, 

and $133 million for FY 2015. Includes within the total authorization $1.545 billion 

for industrial technology services for FY 2011 through FY 2015, which includes a 

total of $681 million for the Technology Innovation Program (TIP), a total of $811.2 

million for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program, and a total 

of $53.1 million for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award program. The 

total for TIP consists of authorization levels of $116 million for FY 2011, $132 million for FY 2012, $147 million for FY 2013, $142 million for FY 2014, and $144 million for FY 2015. The total for MEP consists of authorization levels of $141.1 million 

for FY 2011, $150.9 million for FY 2012, $161.5 million for FY 2013, $172.8 million 

for FY 2014, and $184.9 million for FY 2015. The total for the Malcolm Baldrige 

National Quality Award program includes authorization levels for $10 million for 

FY 2011, $10.3 million for FY 2012, $10.6 million for FY 2013, $10.9 million for FY 

2014, and $11.3 million for FY 2015. 

SEC. 403. UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY.—Creates the position of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards 

and Technology. The current Director of NIST would become the Under Secretary 

until a successor is appointed. (This is the same structure as at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)) 

SEC. 404. REORGANIZATION OF NIST LABORATORIES.—Organizes the NIST 

laboratories into the following operational units: 

1) The Physical Measurement Lab, whose mission is to develop and maintain 

the national standards for length, mass, time, frequency, electricity, temperature, force, radiation, and developing standards policy; 

2) The Information Technology Lab, whose mission and focus is developing 

standards and testing for interoperability, security, usability, and reliability 

of information technologies (IT) and communications technologies; 

3) The Engineering Lab, whose mission is to develop and disseminate advance 

manufacturing and construction technologies, including performance metrics 

and technical standards for green infrastructure and energy efficiency, to the 

U.S. manufacturing and construction industries; 

4) The Material Measurement Lab, whose mission is to serve as the national 

reference lab in biological, chemical, and material sciences and engineering; 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
1112 

5) The Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology, a nationally shared facility for use by industry, institutions of higher education, and Federal agencies 

(including NIST), whose mission is to develop innovative nanoscale measurement and fabrication capabilities; and 

6) The NIST Center for Neutron Research, a nationally shared facility for use 

by industry, institutions of higher education, and Federal agencies (including 

NIST), whose mission is to provide neutron-based measurement capabilities 

for materials research, non-destructive evaluation, neutron imaging, chemical analysis, neutron standards, dosimetry, and radiation metrology. 

Allows the Director to make future changes to the NIST laboratory structure, provided he submit a report to Congress before implementing such change. 

SEC. 405. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT STANDARDS AND CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT COORDINATION.—Assigns the Director of NIST the responsibility of convening Federal departments and agencies to coordinate Federal Government policy 

goals and engagement on international technical standards and conformity assessment-related activities, working with industry and standards development organizations. Requires the Director to submit a report to Congress which addresses current 

and anticipated international standards issues with the potential to impact U.S. 

competitiveness and innovation capabilities, actions taken by the Federal Government to address these issues, and any action the Director is taking, or will take, 

to ensure effective Federal Government engagement on technical standards and conformity assessment-related issues. 

SEC. 406. MANUFACTURING EXTENSION PARTNERSHIP.—Updates the MEP 

program: 

1) Requires MEP Centers to inform local and regional community colleges of 

the skill sets local manufacturers need in their workplace; 

2) Creates an innovation services initiative to assist small and medium-sized 

manufacturers to reduce their energy usage and environmental waste and to 

accelerate the domestic commercialization of new product technologies (including components of renewable energy systems). It also requires centers 

perform market analysis to ensure there is market demand for these new 

product technologies; 

3) Requires NIST to assess its administration of the MEP program using the 

criteria of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award; 

4) Reduces the required cost share of all MEP Centers for fiscal years 2011 

through 2015 and requires a report from the Under Secretary 4 years after 

enactment, with his recommendations on cost-share provisions; and 

5) Exempts the MEP Advisory Board from Section 14 of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (FACA), ’Termination of advisory committees; renewal; continuation.’ 

SEC. 407. BIOSCIENCE RESEARCH PROGRAM.—Establishes a Bioscience Research Program at NIST to support the development of standard reference materials 

and measurements to advance biologic drug research and development, molecular 

diagnostics, medical imaging technology, and personalized medicine. Requires that 

at least one fellow from the postdoctoral fellowship program be assigned to the bioscience research program. 

Allows the Director to establish University Research Centers through a competitive 

application process to conduct research that furthers the objectives of the bioscience 

research program. It requires that, not later than 3 years after any University Research Center is established, the Director evaluate each center for its contribution 

to the bioscience research program. If multiple university research centers are established, the Director shall convene an annual meeting among the researchers at 

such centers and NIST to foster collaboration. 

Under the competitive application process, the institution must describe its research 

and instructional capacity in biosciences; research projects that will be undertaken; 

the extent to which any research program will include industry partners; the distribution of research results; and how the projects to be undertaken at the University Research Center will further the objectives of the bioscience research program. 

The competitive application process would also require the Director to give special 

consideration to minority-serving institutions, as defined in 7 U.S.C. § 7061 and 20 

U.S.C. § 1059 et seq. 

Allows the Director to establish a user facility for industry, institutions of higher 

education, nonprofit organizations, and government agencies in order to perform reVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:37 May 08, 2010 Jkt 056313 PO 00000 Frm 01118 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR478P1.XXX HR478P1

rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
1113 

search and testing, and provide access to advanced or unique equipment, services, 

materials, and other resources. 

Changes the number of NIST’s Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology members to vary between 15 and 20 and requiring at least 13 of those members to be 

from U.S. industry; requires the Director to include the bioscience research program 

in the programmatic planning document transmitted to Congress. 

SEC. 408. EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION AND TRACKING TECHNOLOGIES 

RESEARCH INITIATIVE.—Requires the Director to establish an initiative to support the development of technical standards and conformance architecture to improve the operation and reliability of emergency communication and tracking technologies used in confined spaces, such as underground mines, and shielded environments, such as high-rise buildings and collapsed structures; requires the Director, 

as part of this initiative, to perform an assessment of the measurement, technical 

standards, and conformity assessment needs for these types of technologies and to 

submit a report on this needs assessment to Congress 18 months after enactment. 

SEC. 409. TIP ADVISORY BOARD.—Exempts the TIP Advisory Board from Section 

14 of FACA. 

SEC. 410. UNDERREPRESENTED MINORITIES.—Requires the Director to give 

consideration to the goal of promoting underrepresented minorities in evaluating applications for NIST fellowships for university students and post-doctoral researchers. Also requires the Director to give special consideration for applications received 

from teachers at high-needs schools for the NIST teacher science and technology enhancement program. 

SEC. 411. CYBERSECURITY STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES.—Clarifies that 

the use of cybersecurity standards and guidelines developed by NIST for industry 

and public would not be mandatory. 

SEC. 412. DEFINITIONS.—Defines the terms ‘Director’ and ‘Federal Agency.’ 

TITLE V—INNOVATION 

SEC. 501. OFFICE OF INNOVATION AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP.—Requires the 

Secretary of Commerce to establish an Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship 

to foster innovation and the commercialization of new technologies, products, processes, and services; specifies the duties to be carried out by the Office. 

Establishes an Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship to provide advice to the Secretary. 

SEC. 502. FEDERAL LOAN GUARANTEES FOR INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES 

IN MANUFACTURING.—Requires the Secretary of Commerce to establish a program to provide loan guarantees to small- and medium-sized manufacturers; defines 

eligible projects as projects to reequip, expand, or establish manufacturing facilities 

in the United States to use an innovative technology or an innovative process in 

manufacturing, or to manufacture an innovative technology product or an integral 

component of such product. 

Limits the amount of a loan guarantee to an amount equal to 80 percent of the loan; 

sets out specific limitations on the authority to make loan guarantees; lays out requirements and limitations in the case of default; permits the Secretary to pay principal and interest to lenders or other holders of the loan in specified circumstances; 

sets out terms and conditions for loan guarantees and requires that the Secretary 

consult with the Secretary of the Treasury in establishing terms and conditions for 

loan guarantees. 

Requires the Secretary to charge and collect fees for loan guarantees; mandates that 

borrowers, lenders, and other appropriate parties keep pertinent records and documents to facilitate an effective audit; provides for the full faith and credit of the 

United States for the payment of loan guarantees; requires the Secretary to issue 

final regulations before making any loan guarantees and specifies specific items that 

must be included in the final regulations. 

Requires the Secretary to enter into an arrangement with an independent auditor 

for annual evaluations of the program and requires the Comptroller General to conduct an annual review of the Secretary’s execution of the program; mandates a report to Congress containing a summary of all activities carried out under the program. 

Requires that the Secretary ensure that activities carried out under the program are 

coordinated with, and do not duplicate the efforts of, other loan guarantee programs 

within the Federal Government. 

Authorizes the Secretary to use centers established under Manufacturing Extension 

Partnership (MEP) program to provide information about the program and to conduct outreach to potential borrowers. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
1114 

Defines ‘‘cost’’, ‘‘innovative process’’, ‘‘innovative technology’’, ‘‘loan guarantee’’, ‘‘obligation’’, and ‘‘program’’. 

Provides an authorization of $50 million for each of Fiscal Year 2011 through Fiscal 

year 2015 for the cost of loan guarantees; provides an authorization of such sums 

as are necessary for the Secretary to make payments of principal and interest under 

subsection (g). 

SEC. 503. REGIONAL INNOVATION PROGRAM.—Requires the Secretary of Commerce to establish a regional innovation program to encourage and support the development of regional innovation strategies, including regional innovation clusters. 

Authorizes the Secretary to award grants on a competitive basis to States, tribes, 

local governments, nonprofit organizations, institutions of higher education, publicprivate partnerships, or economic development organizations for activities relating 

to the formation and development of regional innovation clusters; specifies activities 

for which grants may be used; defines eligible recipient; establishes requirements 

for grant applications; limits the amount of any project that the Secretary can provide to 50 percent; requires that the Secretary ensure that activities funded use and 

apply research, best practices, and metrics developed under the innovation research 

and information program. 

Establishes a regional innovation research and information program; specifies the 

activities of the research and information program; permits the Secretary to award 

research grants to support and further the goals of the program; requires that the 

Secretary make data and analysis compiled under the research and information program available to other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and nonprofit and for-profit entities; requires that the Secretary incorporate data and analysis relating to any regional innovation cluster supported by a grant under subsection (b) into the research and information program. 

Requires that the Secretary ensure that activities are coordinated with, and do not 

duplicate the efforts of, other programs at the Department of Commerce and other 

Federal agencies; requires the Secretary to explore and pursue ways to collaborate 

with other Federal agencies, including through multiagency funding opportunities, 

on regional innovation strategies. 

Requires that the Secretary, within 4 years of enactment, enter into a contract with 

an independent entity, such as the National Academy of Sciences, to conduct an 

evaluation of the program, including a recommendation as to whether the program 

should be continued or terminated. 

Defines ‘‘regional innovation cluster’’ 

Authorizes such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 2011 through 2015 

to carry out the program. 

TITLE VI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

SUBTITLE A—OFFICE OF SCIENCE 

SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.—Gives title of the bill as the ‘‘DOE Office of Science Authorization Act of 2010’’ 

SEC. 602. DEFINITIONS.—Provides definitions for ‘‘DEPARTMENT’’, ‘‘DIRECTOR’’, ‘‘OFFICE OF SCIENCE’’, and ‘‘SECRETARY’’ 

SEC. 603. OFFICE OF SCIENCE ACTIVITIES.—Directs the Secretary of Energy to 

carry out research activities in science supporting the missions of the Department, 

including programs on basic energy sciences, biological and environmental research, 

advanced scientific computing research, fusion energy sciences, high energy physics, 

and nuclear physics. 

Instructs the Department’s Under Secretary for Science to ensure the coordination 

with the other activities of the Department, and support joint activities among the 

Department’s programs. 

SEC. 604.—BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES PROGRAM.—Directs the Director of the 

Office of Science to carry out a program in basic energy sciences, including materials 

sciences and engineering, chemical sciences, biosciences, and geosciences, for the 

purpose of providing the scientific foundations for new energy technologies. 

As part of this program, the Director is instructed to support: construction and operation of the program’s major user facilities; competitively awarded energy frontier 

research centers; and relevant accelerator research and development activities, in 

coordination with the Office of Science’s High Energy Physics and Nuclear Physics 

programs. 

SEC. 605. BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH PROGRAM.—Authorizes a program of research, development, and demonstration in the areas of biological systems science and climate and environmental science. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
1115 

The biological systems science research includes activities to: establish a virtual systems biology information framework; support research on computational biology; 

continue the research of the bioenergy research centers, and expand them to include 

biobased products; and direct the program to develop a synthetic biology plan. 

The climate and environment science research includes activities to: support the research and coordination of the ecosystem observation AmeriFlux Network; develop 

a next-generation ecosystem-climate change experiment; continue research in regional and global climate modeling; support integrated assessment research. 

SEC. 606. ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH PROGRAM.—Directs the Director to carry out a research, development, demonstration, and commercial application program to advance computational and networking capabilities to 

analyze, model, simulate, and predict complex phenomena relevant to the development of new energy technologies and the competitiveness of the United States. 

Instructs the Secretary to produce a plan to integrate and leverage the expertise 

and capabilities of the program, as well as other relevant computational programs 

and resources supported by the Federal Government, to advance the missions of the 

Department’s applied energy and energy efficiency programs. 

Instructs the Secretary to, at least 18 months prior to the initiation of construction 

or installation of any exascale-class computing facility, produce a plan detailing the 

proposed facility’s cost projections and capabilities to significantly accelerate the development of new energy technologies. 

Authorizes research and development activities in applied mathematics, high-end 

computing software development, and next-generation computing architectures and 

platforms to support the missions of the Department. 

SEC. 607. FUSION ENERGY RESEARCH PROGRAM.—Directs the Director to 

carry out a fusion energy sciences research and development program on the scientific and engineering challenges to building a cost-competitive fusion power plant 

and a fusion power industry in the United States. 

As part of this program, the Director is instructed to: coordinate and carry out the 

responsibilities of the United States with respect to the ITER international fusion 

project; produce a 10-year prioritization plan; support fusion materials research and 

development activities in coordination with the Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy; carry out a computational project to advance the capability of fusion researchers to accurately simulate an entire fusion energy system, in collaboration with the 

Advanced Scientific Computing Research program. 

In addition, the Secretary is instructed to establish a research and development program in inertial fusion for energy applications. 

SEC. 608. HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS PROGRAM.—Directs the Director to carry out 

a research program on the elementary constituents of matter and energy and the 

nature of space and time. 

As part of this program, the Director is instructed to support research in the nature 

of the neutrino, dark energy, and dark matter. 

The Director is also instructed to carry out research and development in advanced 

accelerator concepts and technologies to reduce the necessary scope and cost for the 

next generation of particle accelerators. 

SEC. 609. NUCLEAR PHYSICS PROGRAM.—Directs the Director to carry out a research program, and support relevant facilities, to discover and understand various 

forms of nuclear matter. 

Director is also instructed to carry out a program for the production of isotopes, including the development of techniques to produce isotopes, for research applications. 

SEC. 610. SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM.—Directs 

the Director to carry out a program to improve the safety, efficiency, and mission 

readiness of infrastructure at Office of Science laboratories. 

Sets the minor construction threshold at Office of Science laboratories at $10 million, to be adjusted by the Secretary in accordance with the Engineering NewsRecord Construction Cost Index, or an appropriate alternative index as determined 

by the Secretary, once every 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act. 

SEC. 611. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Authorizes to be appropriated to the Secretary of Energy for the activities of the Office of Science: 

$6,221,000,000 for FY 2011; $6,656,000,000 for FY 2012; $7,122,000,000 for FY 

2013; $7,621,000,000 for FY 2014; $8,154,000,000 for FY 2015. 

SUBTITLE B—ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY-ENERGY 

SEC. 621. Short Title.—ARPA–E Reauthorization Act of 2010 

SEC. 622. ARPA–E AMENDMENTS.—Amends section 5012 of the America COMPETES Act of 2007 through the following: 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
1116 

(1) in GOALS 

Adds provisions to clarify that ARPA–E will achieve its goals through both fundamental ‘‘and applied’’ science, and through ‘‘promoting the commercial application 

of advanced energy technologies’’. 

(2) in GOALS 

Emphasizes that the R&D on manufacturing processes and technologies should be 

for the domestic manufacturing of novel energy technologies. 

(3) Re-designates subsections (f) as (g), and reorders all subsections thereafter 

(4) Inserts new subsection ‘‘(f) AWARDS’’ to clarify that the Director of ARPA–E has 

the authority to initiate and execute the full range of award instruments of the Department, including grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, cash prizes and other 

transactions. ‘‘Other Transactions Authority’’ is a flexible contracting authority 

granted to the Department in Section 1007 of the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005. 

(5) in PERSONNEL 

Inserts new paragraph (1) requiring the Director to maintain a staff of qualified and 

experienced legal counsel, contracting personnel, and program directors to serve 

solely within ARPA–E, thus further allowing ARPA–E to remain separate and distinct from the other programs within the Department. 

Makes changes to clarify that program managers (program directors) can direct 

more than one program, and that program managers (program directors) are not required to seek the advice of advisory committees or scientific organizations in making award selections. 

Adds to the list of program manager (program director) responsibilities identifying 

cost-sharing opportunities for projects, including through possible exercising of waiver authority by the Secretary under Section 988 of EPAct 2005; and identifying 

ways to transfer successful energy technology projects to the marketplace. 

Clarifies that the term of a program manager (program director) may be ‘‘up to’’ 3 

years. 

Strikes requirement that ARPA–E have at least 70 and not less than 120 personnel. 

Replaces term ‘‘program manager’’ with ‘‘program director’’ to align with current 

practices of ARPA–E. 

Authorizes the Director to select exceptional scientific, legal, business, and technical 

personnel to serve as limited terms as Fellows. 

(6) in REPORTS and ROADMAPS 

Shifts deadlines for the Strategic Vision Roadmap from 2008 and 2011, to 2010 and 

2013, respectively. 

(7) in FEDERAL DEMONSTRATION OF TECHNOLOGIES 

Strengthens existing language to require Director to actively seek opportunities to 

demonstrate ARPA–E technologies through procurement by DOE and other Federal 

agencies. 

(8) Inserts new subsection ‘‘(k) EVENTS’’ authorizing the Director to convene events 

for the purposes of allowing ARPA–E project awardees and finalist to demonstrate 

technologies to a range of stakeholders, and for other purposes as determined by the 

Director. 

(9) in ARPA–E EVALUATION 

Changes from ‘‘4 years’’ to ‘‘6 years’’ the time after establishment at which the National Academies will evaluate the performance of ARPA–E. 

(10) in ARPA–E EVALUATION 

Adds a requirement that the lessons learned in the National Academies evaluation 

of ARPA–E shall consider how such lessons may apply to other programs within 

DOE. 

(11) in FUNDING 

Extends Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal Years 2011 through 2015: 

(A) $300,000,000 for fiscal year 2011 

(B) $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2012 

(C) $700,000,000 for fiscal year 2013 

(D) $900,000,000 for fiscal year 2014 

(E) $1,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2015 

And such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 2016 through 2020. 

(12) in FUNDING 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
1117 

Strikes Limitation which made fiscal year 2008 funding for ARPA–E contingent 

upon the Office of Science receiving an increase from 2007. 

(13) in FUNDING 

Increases the amount of funds that shall be used for technology transfer and outreach activities from 2.5 percent to 5 percent of total appropriated funds, consistent 

with the program’s goals of advancing technologies to commercial application. 

SUBTITLE C—ENERGY INNOVATION HUBS 

SEC 631. SHORT TITLE.—Energy Innovation Hubs Authorization Act of 2010 

SEC 632. ENERGY INNOVATION HUBS.—(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—Directs the Secretary to carry out a program to create Energy Innovation 

Hubs that will conduct and support research, development, demonstration and commercial application of advanced energy technologies. Where practicable these activities should occur in a central location. Each Hub created shall be focused on a particular unique advanced energy technology. The Secretary will ensure that the program is coordinated with other DOE research entities so as to avoid duplication and 

shall convene representatives from the Hubs, DOE, and any other relevant entities 

the Secretary find appropriate. The Secretary shall also administer each Hub 

through a DOE program with relevant jurisdiction based on a Hub’s technology 

focus. 

(b) CONSORTIA.—Outlines the requirements that must be met by an applicant consortium in order to be eligible to form a Hub. A consortium must be made up of 

at least two qualifying entities who have created a binding agreement documenting 

the partnership agreement, measures to ensure cost-effective implementation, a proposed budget, conflict of interest procedures, an accounting structure, and an external advisory committee. The application made by the consortium to the Secretary 

will be made by one of the consortium’s members as a prime applicant. The application shall describe the consortium agreement and, in the event consortium members 

will not be in a centralized location shall include a communications plan to ensure 

integration of the Hub’s activities. 

(c) SELECTION AND SCHEDULE.—Establishes the process by which the Secretary 

shall review all consortium applications received. The Secretary shall review all Hub 

applications received, and consortia grants will be approved through a competitive 

process. Any grant made to a Hub shall be for a period no longer than 5 years and 

may be renewed through a competitive process. 

(d) HUB OPERATIONS.—Details that a Hub shall conduct multidisciplinary, collaborative research, development, demonstration, and commercial application of advanced energy technologies. A Hub shall encourage collaboration and communication and, whenever practicable, conduct its activities at one centralized location. In 

order to provide greater transparency, the Hub shall develop and publish on DOE’s 

website all proposed plans and programs. In addition to a general duty to monitor 

project implementation and coordination, the Hub shall submit an annual report to 

the Secretary that summarizes all activities and projects, expenditures, and external 

advisory committee members. 

The external advisory committee each Hub is required to establish under this section will advise Hub management on programs and planned activities, but shall not 

have decision making authority. The advisory committee membership should have 

sufficient expertise to provide guidance on scientific, technical, financial, and research management matters. 

This section also requires each Hub to establish procedures to address conflicts of 

interest, consistent with those already established by DOE. The Secretary may disqualify an application or revoke funds if a failure to disclose any conflict of interest 

is discovered. 

(e) PROHIBITION ON CONSTRUCTION.—Prohibits any funds granted by the Secretary to a Hub to be used for construction of a new building or facility for Hub 

activities. Furthermore, construction of new buildings or facilities shall not be considered as part of the non-Federal share of a Hub cost-sharing agreement. Excluded 

from this prohibition are any buildings or facilities constructed to serve as a test 

bed or any renovations to existing buildings or facilities so long as the test bed or 

renovations are limited to the scope and scale of the research. 

(f) OVERSIGHT BOARD.—Requires the Secretary to establish within the Department an Oversight Board to monitor the Hubs and their activities. 

(g) DEFINITIONS.—Provides the definitions for terms used within the bill, including: Advanced Energy Technology, Hub, Institution of Higher Education, Qualifying 

Entity, and Secretary. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
1118 

(h) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Provides authorizations for each of 

the fiscal years 2011 through 2015 as follows: 

(1) $110,000,000 for fiscal year 2011; 

(2) $135,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; 

(3) $195,000,000 for fiscal year 2013; 

(4) $210,000,000 for fiscal year 2014; and 

(5) $210,000,000 for fiscal year 2015. 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116223a.eps
1119 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116224a.eps
1120 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116225a.eps
1121 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116226a.eps
1122 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116227a.eps
1123 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116228a.eps
1124 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116229a.eps
1125 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR5116230a.eps
1126 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116h.eps
1127 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116i.eps
1128 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116j.eps
1129 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116k.eps
1130 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116l.eps
1131 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116m.eps
1132 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116n.eps
1133 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116o.eps
1134 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116p.eps
1135 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116q.eps
1136 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116r.eps
1137 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116s.eps
1138 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116t.eps
1139 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116u.eps
1140 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116v.eps
1141 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116w.eps
1142 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116x.eps
1143 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR51161c.eps
1144 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR51162c.eps
1145 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR51163c.eps
1146 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR51164c.eps
1147 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116y.eps
1148 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116z.eps
1149 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116aa.eps
1150 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116bb.eps
1151 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116cc.eps
1152 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116dd.eps
1153 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116ee.eps
1154 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116ff.eps
1155 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116gg.eps
1156 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116hh.eps
1157 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116ii.eps
1158 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116jj.eps
1159 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116kk.eps
1160 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116ll.eps
1161 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116mm.eps
1162 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116nn.eps
1163 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116oo.eps
1164 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116pp.eps
1165 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116qq.eps
1166 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116rr.eps
1167 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116ss.eps
1168 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116tt.eps
1169 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116uu.eps
1170 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116vv.eps
1171 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116ww.eps
1172 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116xx.eps
1173 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116yy.eps
1174 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR51165c.eps
1175 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR51166c.eps
1176 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116zz.eps
1177 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116aaa.eps
1178 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116bbb.eps
1179 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116ccc.eps
1180 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116ddd.eps
1181 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116eee.eps
1182 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116fff.eps
1183 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116ggg.eps
1184 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116hhh.eps
1185 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR51167c.eps
1186 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116iii.eps
1187 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116jjj.eps
1188 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116kkk.eps
1189 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116lll.eps
1190 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116mmm.eps
1191 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116nnn.eps
1192 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116ooo.eps
1193 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116ppp.eps
1194 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116qqq.eps
1195 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116rrr.eps
1196 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116sss.eps
1197 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116ttt.eps
1198 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116uuu.eps
1199 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116vvv.eps
1200 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116www.eps
1201 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116xxx.eps
1202 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116yyy.eps
1203 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116zzz.eps
1204 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116aaaa.eps
1205 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116bbbb.eps
1206 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116cccc.eps
1207 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116dddd.eps
1208 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116eeee.eps
1209 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116ffff.eps
1210 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116gggg.eps
1211 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116hhhh.eps
1212 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116iiii.eps
1213 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116jjjj.eps
1214 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116kkkk.eps
1215 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116llll.eps
1216 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR51168c.eps
1217 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR51169c.eps
1218 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511610c.eps
1219 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116mmmm.eps
1220 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116nnnn.eps
1221 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116oooo.eps
1222 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116pppp.eps
1223 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116qqqq.eps
1224 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGHR511611c.eps
1225 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116rrrr.eps
1226 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116ssss.eps
1227 


rfrederick on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGfcmu5116tttt.eps