COMMITTEE MARKUPS OF H.RES. 72,

H.CON.RES. 76, H.RES. 252,

H.CON.RES. 95, H.RES. 316, H.R. 364,

H.RES. 487, H.R. 2850, AND H.R. 5789

COMPILATION OF MARKUPS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS

2007–2008

Serial No. 110–54

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology

(

COMPILATION OF MARKUPS

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

37–729PS 2008

COMMITTEE MARKUPS OF H.RES. 72,

H.CON.RES. 76, H.RES. 252,

H.CON.RES. 95, H.RES. 316, H.R. 364,

H.RES. 487, H.R. 2850, AND H.R. 5789

COMPILATION OF MARKUPS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS

2007–2008

Serial No. 110–54

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology

(

(This compilation includes Full Committee markup proceedings that did not get

filed as part of a legislative report.)

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov

(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

MARK UDALL, Colorado

DAVID WU, Oregon

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona

JERRY MCNERNEY, California

LAURA RICHARDSON, California

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana

BARON P. HILL, Indiana

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,

Wisconsin

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

TOM FEENEY, Florida

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia

VACANCY

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

HON. NICK LAMPSON, Texas, Chairman

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona

JERRY MCNERNEY, California

MARK UDALL, Colorado

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

BART GORDON, Tennessee

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT

HON. BRAD MILLER, North Carolina, Chairman

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana

BART GORDON, Tennessee

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,

Wisconsin

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION

HON. DAVID WU, Oregon, Chairman

JIM MATHESON, Utah

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona

CHARLIE A. WILSON, Ohio

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

MIKE ROSS, Arizona

LAURA RICHARDSON, California

BART GORDON, Tennessee

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

(IV)

C O N T E N T S

2007–2008

Page

H.Res. 72—Recognizing the work and accomplishments of Mr. Britt ‘‘Max’’

Mayfield, Director of the National Hurricane Center’s Tropical Prediction

Center upon his retirement

Proceedings of the markup held by the Full Committee, January 31,

2007 ................................................................................................................ 1

H.Con.Res. 76—Honoring the 50th Anniversary of the International Geophysical Year (IGY)

Proceedings of the markup held by the Full Committee, March 28, 2007 .. 11

H.Res. 252—Recognizing the 45th Anniversary of John Herschel Glenn Jr.’s

historic achievement in becoming the first United States astronaut to orbit

the Earth

Proceedings of the markup held by the Full Committee, March 28, 2007 .. 21

H.Con.Res. 95—Honoring the career and research accomplishments of Frances

E. Allen, the 2006 recipient of the A.M. Turing Award

Proceedings of the markup held by the Full Committee, April 25, 2007 .... 33

H.Res. 316—Recognizing the accomplishments of Rodger D. Kornberg, Andrew

Fire, Craig Mello, John C. Mather, and George F. Smoot for being awarded

Nobel Prizes in the fields of chemistry, physiology or medicine, and physics

Proceedings of the markup held by the Full Committee, April 25, 2007 .... 47

H.R. 364—To provide for the establishment of the Advanced Research Projects

Agency–Energy ...................................................................................................... 61

Proceedings of the markup held by the Subcommittee on Energy and

Environment, May 10, 2007 ......................................................................... 81

Proceedings of the markup held by the Full Committee, May 23, 2007 ...... 127

H.Res. 487—Recognizing the contribution of modeling and simulation technology to the security and prosperity of the United States, and recognizing

modeling and simulation as a National Critical Technology

Proceedings of the markup held by the Full Committee, June 22, 2007 ..... 231

H.R. 2850—Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2007 ................ 247

Proceedings of the markup held by the Full Committee, July 11, 2007 ...... 263

H.R. 5789—Science and Technology Innovation Act of 2008

Proceedings of the markup held by the Subcommittee on Technology

and Innovation, April 16, 2008 .................................................................... 320

Business Meeting to consider authorization of a subpoena for documents

related to the Department of Energy’s FutureGen project, held by the

Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, June 26, 2008 ...................... 373

(1)

PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE

MARKUP ON H.RES. 72, RECOGNIZING THE

WORK AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF MR.

BRITT ‘‘MAX’’ MAYFIELD, DIRECTOR OF THE

NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER’S TROPICAL PREDICTION CENTER UPON HIS RETIREMENT

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:05 a.m., in Room

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

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.

Chairman GORDON. Welcome, everyone, to the Committee of

Science and Technology, and we will come to order. Pursuant to notice, the Committee meets to consider the following measures: H.R.

547, the Advanced Fuels Infrastructure Research and Development

Act; H.Res. 72, Recognition of the work and accomplishments of Mr.

Britt Max Mayfield, Director of the National Hurricane Center’s

Tropical Prediction Center upon his retirement. We are moving forward now for two reasons: one is because it is time to move forward, and the second is that we are going to be having votes in

about 15 minutes. And if some of your Members aren’t here yet,

we are not trying to preempt them but rather provide them the

courtesy of being able to get to vote and not have to come back.

We now will consider H.Res. 72, Recognizing the work and accomplishments of Mr. Britt ‘‘Max’’ Mayfield, Director of the National

Hurricane Center’s Tropical Prediction Center upon his retirement.

I yield myself five minutes.

Today, as I said, the House will consider H.Res. 72, introduced

by Representative Tim Mahoney. H.Res. 72 recognizes the work

and the accomplishments of Mr. ‘‘Max’’ Mayfield, who recently retired from his position as Director of the National Hurricane Center’s Tropical Prediction Center. The NOAA Hurricane Center, part

of NOAA’s National Weather Service, has been a focal point of the

Nation’s hurricane forecast and warnings programs for 50 years.

The mission of the Hurricane Center is to save lives, mitigate property loss by issuing the best watches, warnings, and forecasts of

hazardous tropical weather. Mr. Mayfield attained national celebrity status during the period of 2004 and 2005 hurricane season,

2

appearing on television with hourly updates as Hurricanes Charlie,

Ivan, Francis, Wilma bore down on the Southeastern United

States. With his calm and steady presence, Mr. Mayfield helped

millions of Americans prepare for hurricanes during his tenure

with the National Hurricane Center. H.Res. 72 thanks Mr.

Mayfield for his service, which has undoubtedly helped to save

countless lives and the property of citizens around the world.

Mr. Mayfield will be missed. He has served our nation with distinction for 30 years. I can think of no better mentor and teacher

for our current and future meteorological professionals. Mr.

Mayfield’s knowledge, experience, and sound direction have been

assets to the safety of our nation and security of our citizens. I ask

my colleagues on the Committee to support this resolution.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Gordon follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BART GORDON

Today the Committee will consider House Resolution 72, introduced by Representative Tim Mahoney.

H.Res. 72 recognizes the work and accomplishments of Mr. Max Mayfield, who recently retired from his position as Director of the National Hurricane Center’s Tropical Prediction Center.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Hurricane Center, part of NOAA’s National Weather Service, has been the focal point of

the Nation’s hurricane forecast and warning program for 50 years. The mission of

the hurricane center is to save lives and mitigate property loss by issuing the best

watches, warnings, and forecasts of hazardous tropical weather.

Mr. Mayfield attained national celebrity status during the tempestuous 2004 and

2005 hurricane seasons, appearing on television with hourly updates as hurricanes

Charley, Ivan, and Wilma bore down on the Southeastern United States. With his

calm and steadying presence, Mr. Max Mayfield helped millions of Americans prepare for hurricanes during his tenure with the National Hurricane Center.

H.Res. 72 thanks Mr. Mayfield for his service, which has undoubtedly helped to

save countless lives and the property of citizens around the world.

In addition, this resolution commends Mr. Mayfield’s dedication to expanding educational opportunities for State and local emergency management officials and acknowledges the critical role that Mr. Mayfield has played in forecast and service improvements over his 34-year career.

Born in Oklahoma, Mr. Mayfield holds a Bachelor’s degree in mathematics from

the University of Oklahoma and a Master’s degree in meteorology from Florida

State University. Getting his start on the ground floor, Max joined the hurricane

center in 1972 as an intern. In 1988, he became a hurricane forecaster, rising to

senior forecaster two years later. Mr. Mayfield was named Deputy Director in 1998

and became Acting Director in January 2000 when Jerry Jarrell retired.

Mr. Mayfield will be missed. He has served our nation with distinction for over

30 years. Mr. Mayfield is well known to all of our citizens, especially those in hurricane-prone areas. Mr. Mayfield’s leadership of his forecasting team at the National

Hurricane Center, his clear presentation of hurricane forecasts, and his abilities to

coordinate and communicate with local emergency management personnel resulted

safer and better informed communities.

The National Weather Service and the National Hurricane Center—under the Directorship of Mr. Mayfield—did an excellent job of predicting the track of the storm

and issuing watches and warnings that permitted State and local officials to evacuate many of the people who were in the path of this devastating storm.

The U.S. Department of Commerce recognized Mr. Mayfield with Gold Medals for

his work during Hurricane Andrew (1992) and Hurricane Isabel (2003), and a Silver

Medal during Hurricane Gilbert (1988). He was also awarded a National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Bronze Medal for creating a public-private

partnership to support the Nation’s disaster preparedness.

Max Mayfield has set a high standard for future Directors of the Hurricane Center.

I suspect he will continue to be involved in meteorology through his membership

in the American Meteorological Society.

I can think of no better mentor and teacher for current and future meteorological

professionals.

3

Mr. Mayfield’s knowledge, experience and sound direction have been assets to the

safety of our nation and the security of our citizens. I ask my colleagues on the

Committee to support this resolution.

Chairman GORDON. And now I recognize Mr. Bonner for five

minutes.

Mr. BONNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As one of the few Members of the Gulf Coast who has had firsthand experience dealing

with Mr. Mayfield, I, too, commend you for bringing this resolution

to the Floor today, and am pleased that the Committee is considering H.Res. 72, Recognizing the work and accomplishments of Mr.

Britt ‘‘Max’’ Mayfield, Director of the National Hurricane Center’s

Tropical Prediction Center upon his retirement.

For 34 years, Mr. Mayfield served our country as a meteorologist.

For the last six years, however, he was the face and voice Americans turned to and trusted for the latest information about hurricanes and tropical storms. Over the years, his forecasts have saved

thousands of lives by providing advanced warnings so people could

evacuate prior to storms hitting.

For each tropical storm or hurricane that threatens America’s

coastline, Mr. Mayfield and the staff of the National Hurricane

Center, worked around the clock, gathering information about the

storms and constantly improving the projection of the storm’s

track. As the storm nears the U.S. coast, they often spend days at

a time at the National Hurricane Center making sure that the public continues to receive vital forecasts and warning information.

Throughout his distinguished career, Mr. Mayfield went above and

beyond his responsibilities by spending much of the off-season

doing outreach to communities to make sure they are prepared for

hurricanes and know what to do to protect themselves from these

deadly storms.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join my colleagues in honoring

this outstanding public servant. Just a few minutes ago, I had the

pleasure of meeting with eight young ladies, who are here as part

of ‘‘Students of the Storm,’’ young students, who have come up from

New Orleans, to remind America that the devastation of Hurricane

Katrina still exists. And I know they believe, as we all do, that

‘‘Max’’ Mayfield helped save lives, even during the worst natural

disaster in American history.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Bonner, and we look forward

to your active participation in the NOAA legislation this year. You

have firsthand knowledge and can be a real asset to us.

Does anyone else wish to be recognized?

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

and open to amendment, and that Members proceed with the

amendments in the order of the roster. Without objection, so ordered.

Are there any amendments?

Hearing none, the vote is on the bill, H.Res. 72, Recognizing the

work and accomplishments of Mr. Britt ‘‘Max’’ Mayfield, Director of

the National Hurricane Center’s Tropical Prediction Center upon

his retirement. All of those in favor will say aye. All of those opposed, say no. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.

I recognize Mr. Hall to offer a motion.

4

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

report H.Res. 72 to the House with the recommendation that the

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

make necessary technical and conforming changes, and that the

Chairman take all necessary steps to bring the bill before the

House for consideration.

I yield back my time.

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

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

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

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

I move that Members have two subsequent calendar days in which

to submit supplemental, minority, or additional views on the measure. I move pursuant to Clause 1 of the Rule 22 of the House of

Representatives, that the Committee authorize the Chairman to

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

pass H.Res. 72, Recognizing the work and accomplishments of Mr.

Britt ‘‘Max’’ Mayfield, Director of the National Hurricane Center’s

Tropical Prediction Center upon his retirement. Without objection,

so ordered.

And let me say to our new Members and other Members today.

This was a bit of a bim-bam operation today, the reason being a

couple of things. First of all, these bills were well vetted. They were

bipartisan. Also, we had consultation with our other committees of

jurisdiction. And as I mentioned to you, we are going to be having

votes any moment now. Let this be the opening of discussion about

climate change, of energy, and of alternative energies. We have got

a lot to do here. I know that Mrs. Biggert has a couple of bills that

she has just introduced. We are looking forward to those. Mrs.

Biggert, we are glad you are here. And we welcome other bills on

this issue. We want to try to get a good idea, vet it well, take it

out and get it passed, and then we hope that you will talk with

senators in your states, and we will get some things done.

So I want to thank the Members for their attendance, and this

concludes our markup.

[Whereupon, at 11:29 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

(5)

Appendix:

H.RES. 72

6

7

8

9

(11)

PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE

MARKUP ON H.CON.RES. 76, HONORING THE

50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE INTERNATIONAL GEOPHYSICAL YEAR (IGY)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 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 on Science

and Technology will come to order.

Pursuant to notice, the Committee meets to consider the following measures: H.R. 362, ‘‘10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds’’

Math and Science Scholarship Act; H.Con.Res. 76, Honoring the

50th Anniversary of the International Geophysical Year; and H.R.

252, Recognizing the 45th Anniversary of John Herschel Glenn Jr.’s

Historic Achievement in Becoming the First United States Astronaut

to Orbit the Earth.

We will now proceed with the markup.

Today, we are meeting to markup three bipartisan bills.

I realize that I am starting to sound like a broken record, but

I sincerely hope that the Committee on Science and Technology is

a place where Members of both parties can come together to get

work done on important issues in a bipartisan way.

The important, non-partisan issue of this markup is competitiveness. This is one of the most critical issues facing our nation today.

H.R. 362, the ‘‘10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds’’ Science and

Math Scholarship Act, which I sponsored and which my friend,

Ralph Hall, co-sponsored, takes a big step forward in dealing with

the vital issues.

Together with H.R. 363, which this committee reported out earlier this month, these bills take the recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences ‘‘Rising Above the Gathering Storm’’ report, and turn them into real legislation that will make a difference.

In addition to H.R. 362, we are also marking up two other bills.

H.Con.Res. 76 is a resolution honoring the 50th anniversary of

the International Geophysical Year, an international cooperative

initiative that led to significant advances in space and Earth

science, and which was marked by the dawn of the Space Age.

12

H.Res. 252 recognizes the 45th anniversary of John Glenn’s historic space mission, in which he became the first American to orbit

the Earth.

The space race of the 1950’s and 1960’s helped advance—to drive

scientific achievement and technological innovation in the 20th century, and it is fitting that today, as we honor the scientific and

technological achievements of the past, we are also helping to ensure this country’s ability to make these great gains in the future.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Gordon follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BART GORDON

Today we are meeting to markup three bipartisan bills.

I realize that I’m starting to sound like a broken record, but I sincerely hope that

the Committee on Science and Technology is a place where Members of both parties

can come together to get work done on important issues in a bipartisan way.

The important, non-partisan issue of this markup is U.S. competitiveness. This

is one of the most critical issues facing our nation today. H.R. 362, the ‘‘10,000

Teachers, 10 Million Minds’’ Science and Math Scholarship Act, which I sponsored

and Ralph Hall co-sponsored, takes a big step forward in dealing with this vital

issue.

Together with H.R. 363, which this committee reported out earlier this month,

these bills take recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences ‘‘Rising

Above the Gathering Storm’’ report, and turn them into real legislation that will

make a difference.

In addition to H.R. 362, we are also marking up two other bills.

H.Con.Res. 76 is a resolution honoring the 50th anniversary of the International

Geophysical Year, an international cooperative initiative that led to significant advances in space and Earth science, and which was marked by the dawn of the Space

Age.

H.Res. 252 recognizes the 45th anniversary of John Glenn’s historic space mission

in which he became the first American to orbit the Earth.

The space race of the 1950’s and 1960’s helped to drive scientific achievement and

technological innovation in the 20th century.

It is fitting that today, as we honor the scientific and technological achievements

of the past, we are also helping to insure this country’s ability to make these great

gains in the future.

Chairman GORDON. I recognize Mr. Hall to present his opening

remarks.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank you, of course, as usual, for

calling this markup today.

We have before us three measures, as you have stated, and a

very important piece of innovation and competitiveness agenda

that targets improving the caliber of our future K–12 math and

science teachers and two space-related resolutions.

With regard to H.R. 362, I am very pleased to see us considering

the bill. It has many of the elements that this committee passed

last year. As I have stated before, I am especially pleased to see

that we are using the University of Texas’s UTeach program for

the basis for a scholarship program for STEM students who commit

to teaching K–12 science and math classes after graduation.

Now I understand that there will be an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered to H.R. 362, which includes agreed-upon

improvements to the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I really do thank you for working with our side,

as you have always done, on making these improvements, not only

to the underlying measure, but also with regards to H.R. 524, the

Partnership for Access to Laboratory Science Act, which I believe is

also going to be offered as an amendment to H.R. 362.

Okay. With that, I yield back my time.

13

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Hall, for your support of the

bill and, more importantly, for your good additions to make a good

bill even better.

Without objection, Members may place statements in the record

at this point.

We now offer—we now will consider H.Con.Res. 76, Honoring the

50th Anniversary of the International Geophysical Year. I yield Mr.

Udall five minutes to describe his bill.

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased that we are here today to markup H.Con.Res. 76,

which is a concurrent resolution honoring the 50th anniversary of

the International Geophysical Year, also known as the IGY.

The resolution marks the 50th anniversary of the International

Geophysical Year, honors its contributions to space research, and

looks forward to future accomplishments.

I want to thank several of my colleagues from the Science and

Technology Committee that joined me as original co-sponsors, and

in particular I would thank, the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee Ranking Member Calvert, Chairman Gordon, and Research and Science Education Subcommittee Chairman Baird for

their support.

The International Geophysical Year of 1957/1958 was a highlysuccessful international effort involving 67 nations that came together during the Cold War to coordinate global observations and

measurements of the solid Earth, oceans, the atmosphere, and the

near-Earth space environment.

During the IGY, successful launches of the first artificial satellites took place, Sputnik 1 by the former Soviet Union, and Explorer 1 by the United States, marking the dawn of the space age.

The Explorer 1 also enabled one of the most notable achievements

of the IGY, the discovery of the belts of trapped, charged particles

in the Earth’s upper atmosphere by the late Dr. James Van Allen

of Iowa.

I introduced a similar resolution in the 108th Congress, which

passed the House, to honor the IGY and to encourage the celebration of its 50th anniversary throughout the country and the globe.

This year’s commemoration serves to not only remember the

great scientific work that was done during this period, but also to

inspire the next generation of scientists and engineers, who will be

critical to our continued progress and economic well being.

In that regard, H.Con.Res. 76 encourages the public and in particular our young people to participate in celebrations planned for

the IGY anniversary year and to embrace challenging goals for future research in Earth and space science. So that we will be able

to look back, 50 years from now, on equally exciting accomplishments and discoveries.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this important

resolution at today’s markup in order that we may recognize and

honor the 50th anniversary of the International Geophysical Year.

Thank you, and I would yield back my time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Udall follows:]

14

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE MARK UDALL

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased that we are here today to mark up

H.Con.Res. 76, Honoring the 50th Anniversary of the International Geophysical Year

(IGY).

This resolution marks the 50th anniversary of the International Geophysical Year

(IGY), honors its contributions to space research, and looks forward to future accomplishments.

I am pleased that several of my colleagues from the Science and Technology Committee have joined me as original co-sponsors and would like to thank Space and

Aeronautics Subcommittee Ranking Member Calvert, Chairman Gordon, Research

and Science Education Subcommittee Chairman Baird for their support.

The International Geophysical Year of 1957–1958 was a highly successful international effort involving 67 nations that came together during the Cold War to coordinate global observations and measurements of the solid Earth, oceans, the atmosphere, and the near-Earth space environment.

During the IGY, the successful launches of the first artificial satellites took

place—Sputnik 1 by the former Soviet Union and Explorer 1 by the United States—

marking the dawn of the Space Age.

Explorer 1 also enabled one of the most notable achievements of the IGY, the discovery of belts of trapped, charged particles in the Earth’s upper atmosphere by the

late Dr. James Van Allen of Iowa.

I introduced a similar resolution in the 108th Congress, which passed the House,

to honor the IGY and to encourage the celebration of its 50th anniversary throughout the country and the globe.

This year’s commemoration serves to not only remember the great scientific work

that was done during the IGY, but also to inspire the next generation of scientists

and engineers, who will be critical to our continued progress and economic well

being.

In that regard, H.Con.Res. 76 encourages the public and in particular our young

people to participate in celebrations planned for the IGY anniversary year and to

embrace challenging goals for future research in Earth and space science—so that

we will be able to look back, 50 years from now, on equally exciting accomplishments and discoveries.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.Con.Res. 76 at today’s markup

in order that we may recognize and honor the fiftieth anniversary of the International Geophysical Year.

Thank you and I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Udall.

The Chair recognizes Mr. Hall to present any remarks on the

bill.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I don’t think there is any disagreement

on this committee that it is appropriate to recognize the 50th anniversary of the International Geophysical Year and all of its contributions to scientific research.

We passed this exact same resolution two years ago in anticipation of the upcoming International Polar Year, which has now arrived. I believe the point of the resolution then was to encourage

participation in future IGYs. Well, we are actively participating

now.

I am not sure that I understand why we have chosen to omit any

mention of the current IPY in this resolution, as our committee has

jurisdiction over the most prominent federal agency participating

in it.

In addition to NASA, which this resolution highlights, the National Science Foundation and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Department of Energy are all very

actively participating. In fact, NSF is the lead U.S. agency for this

endeavor.

Now Mr. Chairman, I support this resolution, because I agree

with everything it states, however, I believe the current IPY also

has a potential to have an even greater impact on our future. On

15

a day when we are reporting innovation and competitiveness legislation, I feel it is only appropriate to also tip our hats to the current IPY that ‘‘promises to bring about fundamental advances in

many areas of science and to fire the enthusiasm of young men and

women for careers in science and engineering.’’

At this time, I would like to yield Mr. Calvert the balance of my

time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RALPH M. HALL

Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is any disagreement on this committee that

it is appropriate to recognize the 50th anniversary of the International Geophysical

Year (IGY) and ALL of its contributions to scientific research. We passed this exact

same resolution two years ago in anticipation of the upcoming International Polar

Year (IPY), which has now arrived. I believe the point of the resolution then was

to encourage participation in future ‘‘IGYs.’’ Well, we are actively participating now.

I am not sure I understand why we have chosen to omit any mention of the current IPY in this resolution, as our committee has jurisdiction over the most prominent federal agencies participating in it. In addition to NASA, which this resolution

highlights, the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Department of Energy are all very actively participating. In fact, NSF is the lead US agency for this endeavor.

Mr. Chairman, I support this resolution because I agree with everything it states;

however, I believe the current IPY also has the potential to have an even greater

impact on our future. On a day when we are reporting innovation and competitiveness legislation, I feel it is only appropriate to also tip our hats to the current IPY

that ‘‘promises. . .to bring about fundamental advances in many areas of science,

and to fire the enthusiasm of young men and women for careers in science and engineering.’’

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Hall.

I have, really, no further comment other than the fact that I am

happy to join Congressman Udall as an original co-sponsor and

would encourage everyone’s support, and I certainly share the comments of Mr. Hall, also.

Thank you.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Hall and Mr. Calvert.

Does anyone else wish to be recognized?

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

to amendment and that any Members—and that Members proceed

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

so ordered.

Are there any amendments?

Hearing none, the vote is on the bill, H.Con.Res. 76. All in favor

will say aye. All of those opposed, say no. In the opinion of the

Chair, the ayes have it.

I recognize Mr. Hall for a motion.

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

report House Concurrent Resolution 76 to the House with the recommendation that the bill do pass. Furthermore, I move that the

staff be instructed to make necessary technical and conforming

changes and that the Chairman take all necessary steps to bring

the bill before the House for consideration.

I yield back.

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

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

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

16

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

I move that Members have two subsequent calendar days in which

to submit supplemental, minority, or additional views on the measure. I move pursuant to Clause 1 of Rule 22 of the Rules of the

House of Representatives that the Committee authorize the Chairman to offer such motions as may be necessary in the House to

adopt and pass H.Con.Res. 76, Honoring the 50th Anniversary of

the International Geophysical Year. Without objection, so ordered.

I want—let me, again, thank all you Members today. This has

been another, I think, productive markup, bipartisan, non-partisan,

that I hope that everyone will go home and take credit for it, because you all deserve it.

And I will see you on the Floor probably the first week that we

come back.

And the Committee is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:17 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

(17)

Appendix:

H.CON.RES. 76

18

19

20

(21)

PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE

MARKUP ON H.RES. 252, RECOGNIZING THE

45TH ANNIVERSARY OF JOHN HERSCHEL

GLENN, JR.’S HISTORIC ACHIEVEMENT IN

BECOMING THE FIRST UNITED STATES ASTRONAUT TO ORBIT THE EARTH

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 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 on Science

and Technology will come to order.

Pursuant to notice, the Committee meets to consider the following measures: H.R. 362, ‘‘10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds’’

Math and Science Scholarship Act; H.Con.Res. 76, Honoring the

50th Anniversary of the International Geophysical Year; and H.R.

252, Recognizing the 45th Anniversary of John Herschel Glenn Jr.’s

Historic Achievement in Becoming the First United States Astronaut

to Orbit the Earth.

We will now proceed with the markup.

Today, we are meeting to markup three bipartisan bills.

I realize that I am starting to sound like a broken record, but

I sincerely hope that the Committee on Science and Technology is

a place where Members of both parties can come together to get

work done on important issues in a bipartisan way.

The important, non-partisan issue of this markup is competitiveness. This is one of the most critical issues facing our nation today.

H.R. 362, the ‘‘10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds’’ Science and

Math Scholarship Act, which I sponsored and which my friend,

Ralph Hall, co-sponsored, takes a big step forward in dealing with

the vital issues.

Together with H.R. 363, which this committee reported out earlier this month, these bills take the recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences ‘‘Rising Above the Gathering Storm’’ report, and turn them into real legislation that will make a difference.

In addition to H.R. 362, we are also marking up two other bills.

H.Con.Res. 76 is a resolution honoring the 50th anniversary of

the International Geophysical Year, an international cooperative

22

initiative that led to significant advances in space and Earth

science, and which was marked by the dawn of the Space Age.

H.Res. 252 recognizes the 45th anniversary of John Glenn’s historic space mission, in which he became the first American to orbit

the Earth.

The space race of the 1950’s and 1960’s helped advance—to drive

scientific achievement and technological innovation in the 20th century, and it is fitting that today, as we honor the scientific and

technological achievements of the past, we are also helping to ensure this country’s ability to make these great gains in the future.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Gordon follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BART GORDON

Today we are meeting to markup three bipartisan bills.

I realize that I’m starting to sound like a broken record, but I sincerely hope that

the Committee on Science and Technology is a place where Members of both parties

can come together to get work done on important issues in a bipartisan way.

The important, non-partisan issue of this markup is U.S. competitiveness. This

is one of the most critical issues facing our nation today. H.R. 362, the ‘‘10,000

Teachers, 10 Million Minds’’ Science and Math Scholarship Act, which I sponsored

and Ralph Hall co-sponsored, takes a big step forward in dealing with this vital

issue.

Together with H.R. 363, which this committee reported out earlier this month,

these bills take recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences ‘‘Rising

Above the Gathering Storm’’ report, and turn them into real legislation that will

make a difference.

In addition to H.R. 362, we are also marking up two other bills.

H.Con.Res. 76 is a resolution honoring the 50th anniversary of the International

Geophysical Year, an international cooperative initiative that led to significant advances in space and Earth science, and which was marked by the dawn of the Space

Age.

H.Res. 252 recognizes the 45th anniversary of John Glenn’s historic space mission

in which he became the first American to orbit the Earth.

The space race of the 1950’s and 1960’s helped to drive scientific achievement and

technological innovation in the 20th century.

It is fitting that today, as we honor the scientific and technological achievements

of the past, we are also helping to insure this country’s ability to make these great

gains in the future.

Chairman GORDON. I recognize Mr. Hall to present his opening

remarks.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank you, of course, as usual, for

calling this markup today.

We have before us three measures, as you have stated, and a

very important piece of innovation and competitiveness agenda

that targets improving the caliber of our future K–12 math and

science teachers and two space-related resolutions.

With regard to H.R. 362, I am very pleased to see us considering

the bill. It has many of the elements that this committee passed

last year. As I have stated before, I am especially pleased to see

that we are using the University of Texas’s UTeach program for

the basis for a scholarship program for STEM students who commit

to teaching K–12 science and math classes after graduation.

Now I understand that there will be an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered to H.R. 362, which includes agreed-upon

improvements to the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I really do thank you for working with our side,

as you have always done, on making these improvements, not only

to the underlying measure, but also with regards to H.R. 524, the

23

Partnership for Access to Laboratory Science Act, which I believe is

also going to be offered as an amendment to H.R. 362.

Okay. With that, I yield back my time.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Hall, for your support of the

bill and, more importantly, for your good additions to make a good

bill even better.

Without objection, Members may place statements in the record

at this point.

Chairman GORDON. We will now consider H.Res. 252, Recognizing the 45th Anniversary of John Herschel Glenn, Jr.’s Historic

Achievement in Becoming the First United States Astronaut to Orbit

the Earth. Can you believe it? It was 45 years.

I yield Mr. Wilson five minutes to describe his bill.

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to be an original co-sponsor of House Resolution

252, which commends the accomplishments of John Glenn, an

American hero from my State of Ohio.

As a young man, John Glenn was a dedicated military officer, flying 149 missions during two wars. In 1959, he was selected as one

of the original seven astronauts in the United States Space Program.

John Glenn’s courage inspired the Nation and paved the way for

generations of space exploration. As a Senator, he has helped build

a safer world by co-authoring the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act.

Since his retirement from the Senate, he has contributed in many

ways to the greatness of America, especially by founding the John

Glenn School of Public Affairs at the Ohio State University, which

instills his values of courage, integrity, and service into the next

generation of American leaders.

As a Member of the Science and Technology Committee in Ohio,

and I am very pleased to be a co-sponsor of this legislation, honoring the 45th anniversary of John Glenn’s orbital flight.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution.

Chairman GORDON. I recognize Mr. Hall to present any remarks

on the bill.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, House Resolution 252 honors the 45th

anniversary, as you have stated, of John Glenn, Jr.’s historic mission as the first American to circle the Earth aboard the Mercury

spacecraft, Friendship 7. His mission completed three orbits around

the Earth, reaching an approximate maximum altitude of 162 statute miles and an approximate orbital velocity of 17,500 miles per

hour. This was truly a landmark event in the progress of our

human space flight program, and it was important as a catalyst to

space exploration and scientific advancement in the United States.

These early successes captured the minds and the imaginations of

people all around the world.

After retiring from the space program, John Glenn continued to

serve his country as a distinguished Member of the Senate for 24

years, and in 1998, John Glenn returned to space after 36 years

as a member of the crew of the Space Shuttle Discovery, serving

as a subject for basic research into the effects of weightlessness on

the body of an older person.

24

John Glenn is truly an American hero. And it is high time we

start recognizing these old guys.

And I yield back.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RALPH M. HALL

Mr. Chairman, House Resolution 252 honors the 45th anniversary of John Herschel Glenn, Jr.’s historic mission as the first American to circle the Earth aboard

the Mercury spacecraft ‘‘Friendship-7.’’ His mission completed three orbits around

Earth, reaching an approximate maximum altitude of 162 statute miles and an approximate orbital velocity of 17,500 miles per hour. This was truly a landmark event

in the progress of our human space flight program, and was important as a catalyst

to space exploration and scientific advancement in the United States. These early

successes captured the minds and imaginations of people around the world. After

retiring from the space program, John Glenn continued to serve his country as a

distinguished Member of the Senate for 24 years. In 1998, John Glenn returned to

space after 36 years as a member of the crew of the space shuttle Discovery, serving

as a subject for basic research into the effects of weightlessness on the body of an

older person. John Glenn is truly an American hero.

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Hall, are you volunteering for service?

Mr. HALL. I would like to volunteer the guy that is going to run

against me for a space flight.

Chairman GORDON. Well, this resolution will be on the Floor, as

mentioned, and we welcome everyone that wants to come to that.

If there are any remarks now? John Glenn is a very decent, courageous public servant. I guess to quote someone, we are all Ohioans

today, because he is for everybody.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, can I tell you a story about Glenn real

brief?

Chairman GORDON. Certainly.

Mr. HALL. He was tired, and the campaign for President, came

home all beat down, had a hard day. He was going down in the

rankings and everything, and he came in and his wife was not just

overly comforting to him, but his dog ran up and licked his hand.

And he said, ‘‘You know, when I come home, I ought to have at

least two friends here.’’ She bought him another dog.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Calvert is recognized.

Mr. CALVERT. I just want to certainly join in our admiration of

John Glenn, but I also want to point out another Ohioan, Neil

Armstrong. And I think we are going to have an opportunity, hopefully, later this Congress, to recognize him, also. So I hope we take

that opportunity to do so.

Chairman GORDON. We will welcome that opportunity and look

forward to your leadership in that regard.

Anyone else?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Will the Chairman yield?

Chairman GORDON. Certainly.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Does all this talk mean we have to be for

Ohio State this weekend?

Chairman GORDON. Any other—anyone else wish to make a comment, pertinent or not?

Okay. If not, I ask unanimous consent the bill is considered as

read and open to amendment at any point and that the Members

proceed with the amendment in the order of the roster. Without objection, so ordered.

25

Are there any amendments?

Hearing none, the vote is on the bill, H.Res. 252. All those in

favor, say aye. All of those opposed, say no. In the opinion of the

Chair, the ayes have it.

I will recognize Mr. Hall to offer a motion.

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

report House Resolution 252 to the House with the recommendation that the bill do pass. Furthermore, I move that the staff be instructed to make necessary technical and conforming changes and

that the Chairman take all necessary steps to bring the bill before

the House for consideration.

I yield back.

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

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

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

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

I move that Members have two subsequent calendar days in which

to submit supplemental, minority, or additional views on the measure. I move pursuant to Clause 1 of Rule 22 of the Rules of the

House of Representatives that the Committee authorize the Chairman to offer such motions as may be necessary in the House to

adopt and pass H.Res. 252, Recognizing the 45th Anniversary of

John Herschel Glenn, Jr.’s Historic Achievement in Becoming the

First United States Astronaut to Orbit the Earth. Without objection,

so ordered.

Let me, again, thank all you Members today. This has been another, I think, productive markup, bipartisan, non-partisan, that I

hope that everyone will go home and take credit for it, because you

all deserve it.

And I will see you on the Floor probably the first week that we

come back.

And the Committee is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:17 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

(27)

Appendix:

H.RES. 252

28

29

30

31

(33)

PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE

MARKUP ON H.CON.RES. 95, HONORING THE

CAREER AND RESEARCH ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF FRANCES E. ALLEN, THE 2006

RECIPIENT OF THE A.M. TURING AWARD

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 25, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room

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

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.

Chairman GORDON. The Committee on Science and Technology

will come to order. Pursuant to notice, the Committee on Science

and Technology meets to consider the following measures, H.R.

1867, the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007;

H.R. 1868, Technological Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 2007; H.Con.Res. 95, Honoring the career and research

accomplishments of Frances E. Allen, the 2006 recipient of the A.M.

Turing Award; and H.Res. 316, Recognizing the accomplishments of

Roger D. Kornberg, Andrew Fire, Craig Mello, John C. Mather, and

George F. Smoot for being awarded Nobel Prizes in the fields of

chemistry, physiology or medicine, and physics.

And we will now proceed with the markup. Today the Committee

is meeting to markup four good, bipartisan bills. The first bill we

will consider today is H.R. 1867, the National Science Foundation

Authorization Act of 2007. H.R. 1867 was introduced by Chairman

Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and other Members of the Research and Science Education Subcommittee. The Subcommittee

met last Wednesday to consider H.R. 1867 and favorably reported

the bill by voice vote after adopting three amendments. I want to

thank and congratulate Members of the Subcommittee for their

hard work and bipartisan cooperation on this excellent bill.

The core of this bill is the three-year authorization that keeps

the Foundation on a ten-year doubling path. NSF is a major source

of federal backing for basic research at universities across all disciplines, and Members of the Science and Technology Committee

often have a difficult time explaining to our constituents and other

Members of Congress why it is so important to fund basic research.

The benefits to you and me can seem so intangible in comparison

to many of the other things the Federal Government does. But with

the publicity around the recent reports like Rising Above the GathVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:49 Jan 05, 2009 Jkt 037729 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\110MAR~1\37729\37729.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
34

ering Storm, more of our colleagues and constituents understand

that federally funded research pays enormous dividends to society.

Economic growth, public health, national defense, and social advancements have all been tied to technological developments resulting from basic research. Let me just quickly add that as we

know, there is a long time between basic research and applied research; and what we are talking about really—when we look at the

big problems today, whether they are energy independence, whether it is climate change, whether it is competitiveness, our kids’ and

grandkids’ jobs really are going to depend upon the technology that

is developed today. There are seven billion people in the world, half

of which make less than $2 a day. We can’t compete with them at

$2. We don’t want to. So it is the technologies that we are developing today that are going to let our kids and grandkids be more

productive, and that is why it is so important that the National

Science Foundation continue to do its work.

In addition to providing strong research budgets, H.R. 1867 provides important funding for some critical STEM education programs including three K–12 programs this committee expanded

and refined in H.R. 362 which I am happy to say just passed the

House yesterday. And again, I want to thank everyone here for

that bipartisan work. It is a good bill. Mr. Gingrey spoke on it, and

certainly Ralph and others spoke to that. I hope that everybody is

in their local newspapers today because you were all a part of this

bill, and it is a very good bill.

And I am pleased that H.R. 1867 once again reaffirms the critical

role that the National Science Foundation plays with STEM education. This is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it

and continue to work with me to assure that the rest of our colleagues in Congress understand the value of basic research as we

do.

Today we will also take up H.R. 1868, the Technological Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 2007. This is an authorization bill for the programs of the National Institute of Standards

and Technology, NIST. This bill is a bipartisan product of the Technology and Innovation Subcommittee, and I want to commend

Chairman Wu and Ranking Member Gingrey for moving this bill

through the Subcommittee expeditiously. The Science and Technology Committee needs to send a strong signal to the Appropriations Committees about the importance we place on full funding of

NIST. The pace of technology keeps accelerating, particularly in

areas such as biofuels, pharmaceutical biologics, and health care

IT. NIST has an important role to play in the adoption of these

technologies through the creation of standards and the new measurement technologies.

And let me speak just a moment on this. You know, NIST is

probably one of the most under-estimated aspects of the Federal

Government. It was originally meant to take care of measures and

standards. Now it goes much beyond that, and I think it is an

agency that all of us can feel comfortable with because this is not

a regulatory agency. This is an agency that brings together the

business community and the manufacturing community, to work

out problems on standards. And I think you are going to find that

our committee here, besides the Technology and Innovation SubVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:49 Jan 05, 2009 Jkt 037729 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\110MAR~1\37729\37729.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
35

committee, is going to get a lot more respect within Washington

and elsewhere because of this agency. We are where the Commerce

Committee has been stagnant in terms of health care IT. Ways and

Means hasn’t been able to go forward. We are going to be able to

step forward and solve some of those problems where the health

care community is going to look at the Science and Technology

Committee as the one who made that breakthrough. Financial

services is going to look at us pretty soon as a committee that can

make those kind of breakthroughs because of NIST. So we are

going to continue working on that, and I think you are going to see

NIST help us to make our committee much more relevant.

The Committee is also aware of the important role that the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, plays in keeping good

manufacturing jobs here in the United States, and NIST has a

proven track record of implementing its technology development

programs.

Finally, the last two measures we are considering today,

H.Con.Res. 95 and H.Res. 316 recognize the outstanding achievements of a group of American scientists. It is important that Congress recognize Americans who achieve great things in science, not

just for the satisfaction of individual scientists but to show the public that Congress truly values the work that scientists do.

And now I will recognize Mr. Hall to present his opening statement.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Gordon follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BART GORDON

Good Morning. Pursuant to notice, the Committee on Science and Technology

meets to consider the following measures:

• H.R. 1867, the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007;

• H.R. 1868, Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act of

2007;

• H.Con.Res. 95, Honoring the career and research accomplishments of Frances

E. Allen, the 2006 recipient of the A.M. Turing Award; and

• H.Res. 316, Recognizing the accomplishments of Roger D. Kornberg, Andrew

Fire, Craig Mello, John C. Mather, and George F. Smoot for being awarded

Nobel Prizes in the fields of chemistry, physiology or medicine, and physics.

Today the Committee is meeting to markup four good bipartisan bills. The first

bill we will consider today is H.R. 1867, the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007. H.R. 1867 was introduced by Chairman Baird, Ranking Member

Ehlers and other Members of the Research and Science Education Subcommittee.

The Subcommittee met last Wednesday to consider H.R. 1867, and favorably reported the bill by voice vote after adopting three amendments. I want to thank and

congratulate Members of the Subcommittee for their hard work and bipartisan cooperation on this excellent bill. The core of this bill is the three-year authorization

that keeps the Foundation on a 10-year doubling path.

NSF is a major source of federal backing for basic research at universities, across

all disciplines.

Members of the Science and Technology Committee often have a difficult time explaining to our constituents and other Members of Congress why it is so important

to fund basic research. The benefits to you and me can seem so intangible in comparison to many of the other things the Federal Government funds.

But with the publicity around recent reports like ‘‘Rising Above the Gathering

Storm,’’ more of our colleagues and constituents understand that federally-funded

research pays enormous dividends to society. Economic growth, public health, national defense, and social advancement have all been tied to technological developments resulting from basic research.

36

In addition to providing strong research budgets, H.R. 1867 provides important

funding for some critical STEM education programs, including three K–12 programs

that this committee expanded and refined in H.R. 362, which I am happy to say

just passed the House yesterday.

The education programs at NSF are perhaps more tangible to the typical American, as everybody wants their children to be taught by highly qualified teachers

and to graduate high school and community college prepared for the workforce of

the 21st Century, or to have the opportunity to pursue even higher degrees if they

so desire.

I am pleased that H.R. 1867 once again reaffirms the critical role that NSF plays

in STEM education. This is a good bill. I urge my colleagues to support it, and to

continue to work with me to ensure that the rest of our colleagues in Congress understand the value of basic research as we do.

Today, we’ll also take up H.R. 1868, the Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 2007. This is an authorization bill for the programs of the

National institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

This bill is the bipartisan product of the Technology and Innovation Subcommittee. I want to commend Chairman Wu and Ranking Member Gingrey for

moving this bill through the Subcommittee expeditiously. The Science and Technology Committee needs to send a strong signal to the Appropriations Committee

about the importance we place on full funding for NIST.

H.R. 1868 places the NIST budget on the path to doubling over the next 10 years.

The Science and Technology Committee has always been in the ‘‘amen corner’’ for

fully funding all of NIST.

The pace of technology keeps accelerating—particularly in areas such as biofuels,

pharmaceutical biologics and health care IT. NIST has an important role to play in

the adoption of these technologies through the creation of standards and new measurement technologies.

This committee is also aware of the important role that the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program plays in keeping good manufacturing jobs here in

the U.S. And NIST has a proven track record in implementing its technology development program. H.R. 1868 does an excellent job of balancing and funding these

priorities and everyone on this committee should support this legislation.

Finally, the last two measures we are considering today, H.Con.Res. 95 and

H.Res. 316, recognize the outstanding achievements of a group of American scientists.

It is important that Congress recognizes Americans who achieve great things in

the sciences, not just for the satisfaction of the individual scientists, but to show

the public that the Congress truly values the work that scientists do.

I recognize Mr. Hall to present his opening remarks.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the chance to make

some opening remarks. Of course, as you say, we are considering

two authorization bills relating to the President’s American Competitive Initiative and two resolutions honoring the accomplishments of some very eminent American scientists.

The National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007 authorizes funding for NSF for the next three fiscal years. This measure goes a long way in keeping with the President’s ACI plan to

double the budget within ten years. In fact, it goes slightly beyond

that to incorporate some of the additions to education programs

that the House passed just yesterday.

I appreciate the work of the Subcommittee Ranking Member, Mr.

Ehlers, for his dedication and work on this bill; and I thank the

Chairman and I thank Congressman Baird for their willingness to

cooperate on making this really a truly bipartisan endeavor. I look

forward to our continuing working together to improve this legislation and pass it with broad support.

I am also pleased that we are marking up H.R. 1868, the Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 2007.

H.R. 1868 supports the President’s ACI by setting the NIST lab

budget on a path to double by fiscal year 2017. This bill ensures

that America’s small- and medium-sized manufacturers have access

37

to the latest technologies and processes by authorizing the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program.

Finally, H.R. 1868 authorizes the Technology Innovation Program to promote the swift development of high-risk research into

marketable technologies. And I thank Dr. Ehlers and Dr. Gingrey

for their extensive input into developing this bill, as well as the

staff who dedicated considerable time in this endeavor. Also I want

to thank my Democratic colleagues for incorporating these important priorities in this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I am also pleased this committee will honor six

esteemed American scientists today. H.Con.Res. 95 recognizes the

first woman to receive the prestigious computer science A.M.

Turing Award, Frances Allen. H.Res. 316 honors the five American

scientists who received Nobel Prizes in 2006, Roger Kornberg for

chemistry, Andrew Fire for medicine, Craig Mello for Medicine,

John Mather for physics, and George Smoot for physics.

Before I close, I want to point out that the NSF and NIST bills,

as you have said, Mr. Chairman, both major pieces of legislation,

were developed after only a few hearings on each topic, only one

in the case of NIST. These hearings were at the subcommittee

level, so only a few Members of the Committee were able to attend

the hearings. Also, with regard to the NIST bill, there was never

a hearing on the New Technology Innovation Program. In fact,

these two bills were put together so quickly we have yet to receive

all the witnesses’ response and questions—their response to the

questions for the record submitted by Members of the Committee.

So Mr. Chairman, while I certainly support these bills in their

current form, once I have received all of the witnesses’ response,

I, or some other Members, may want to propose further amendments to these bills when they are considered on the House Floor.

I know you will work with us on that.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I thank you

for laying out a good bill and preparing for a good hearing. I yield

back.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RALPH M. HALL

• H.R. 1867, National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007

• H.R. 1868, Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 2007

• H.Con.Res. 95, Honoring the Career and Research Accomplishments of

Frances E. Allen, the 2006 Recipient of the A.M. Turing Award

• H.Res. 316, Recognizing the accomplishments of Roger D. Kornberg, Andrew

Fire, Craig Mello, John C. Mather, and George F. Smoot for being award

Nobel Prizes in the fields of chemistry, physiology or medicine, and physics.

Thank you, Chairman Gordon, for the chance to make some opening remarks

about today’s markup. Today we are considering two authorization bills related to

the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) and two resolutions honoring the accomplishments of eminent American scientists.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) Authorization Act of 2007, H.R. 1867, authorizes funding for NSF for the next three fiscal years. This measure goes a long

way in keeping with the President’s ACI plan to double the budget within ten years.

In fact, it goes slightly beyond that to incorporate some of the additions to education

programs that the House passed yesterday. I appreciate the work of the Subcommittee Ranking Member, Mr. Ehlers, for his dedication and work on this bill

and thank the Chairman and Mr. Baird for their willingness to cooperate on making

this a bipartisan endeavor. I look forward to our continuing to work together to improve this legislation and pass it with broad support.

38

I am pleased to be an original co-sponsor of H.R. 1868, the Technology Innovation

and Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 2007. H.R. 1868 supports the President’s ACI

by setting NIST’s lab budget on a path to double the budget by fiscal year 2017.

The bill will ensure America’s small- and medium-sized manufacturers have access

to the latest technologies and processes by authorizing the Manufacturing Extension

Partnership Program. Finally, H.R. 1868 authorizes the Technology Innovation Program to promote the swift development of high-risk research into marketable technologies. I thank Dr. Ehlers and Dr. Gingrey for their extensive input in developing

this bill and my Democratic colleagues for incorporating our priorities into this bipartisan legislation.

I also am pleased the Committee will honor six esteemed American scientists

today. H.Con.Res. 95 recognizes the first woman to receive the prestigious computer

science A.M. Turner award, Frances Allen. H.Res. 316 honors the five American scientists who received Nobel prizes in 2006: Roger Kornberg for chemistry; Andrew

Fire for medicine; Craig Mello for medicine; John Mather for physics; and George

Smoot for physics.

Before I close, I want to point out that the NSF and NIST bills, both major pieces

of legislation, were developed after only one hearing on each topic. Those hearings

were at the Subcommittee level, so only a few Members of the Committee were able

to attend the hearings. In the case of the NIST bill there was never a hearing on

the new Technology Innovation Program. In fact, these two bills were put together

so quickly that we have yet to receive all of the witnesses’ responses to questions

for the record submitted by Members of this committee. Therefore, Mr. Chairman,

while I support these bills in their current form, once I have reviewed all of the witnesses responses I, or other Members, may want to propose further amendments to

these bills when they are considered on the House Floor.

With that I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Hall. Let me assure you that

we want to continue to work in the spirit that we have to get good

bills. You know, the last NIST authorization was in 1992 out of

this committee. It has been five years since we had a National

Science Foundation authorization. There have been lots of hearings

in between, but you know, it is time to get something done; and

we want to have the best bill possible, and you can be absolutely

assured that we will continue with that collaboration.

Without objection, Members may place statements in the record

at this point.

We now will consider H. Con. Resolution 95, Honoring the career

and research accomplishments of Frances E. Allen, the 2006 recipient of the A.M. Turing Award. I yield Ms. Woolsey five minutes to

describe this resolution.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for bringing H.Con.Res. 94 before the Committee for consideration.

H.Con.Res. 95 honors a pioneer in the world of computing, Dr.

Frances Allen, the first woman awarded the A.M. Turing Award by

the Association for Computing Machinery, ACM.

The Turing Award is widely considered to be actually the Nobel

Prize of computing and by being the first female recipient, Dr.

Allen is highlighted as a role model for women everywhere to aspire to a career in math and science.

As a scientist at IBM since the early 1960s, Dr. Allen pioneered

new technologies which serve as the basis for complex theories that

are widely used today throughout the computer industry. Because

of this, she was also the first woman to be recognized as an IBM

Fellow in 1989.

It should come as no surprise to any Member of this committee

that the Nation’s IT workforce is suffering from a lack of qualified

candidates. It is certainly telling that women who earn more than

half of all undergraduate degrees in this country and make up

39

more than half of the professional workforce represent only 25 percent of all IT workers. In fact, that percentage of women graduating with degrees in computer science has fallen from 37 percent

of total graduates in ’95 to just 15 percent in 2005.

With grim statistics like these, it is clear that if we are going to

close the gap and ensure the information technologies sector has

enough workers, we must get young women into this workforce.

Besides her outstanding scientific achievements, Dr. Allen has

also been an inspirational mentor to all young researchers and a

leader within the computing community. She is an Advisory Council member of the Anita Board Institute for Women and Technology

whose goal is to increase participation of women in all aspects of

technology. It is clear that Dr. Allen deserves recognition for all the

tireless work she has done to promote women’s roles in computing.

Mr. Chairman, Dr. Frances Allen is a role model for scientists everywhere. Having succeeded at the highest levels of math and

science, I therefore urge my colleagues to support this bill and not

only congratulate Dr. Allen on her success but show that this Congress appreciates her setting the bar high in her support of an increased presence of women in science and technology.

With that I yield back.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Ms. Woolsey, and I recognize Mr.

Hall to present any remarks on the resolution.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Woolsey has very adequately set

out the reasons that this lady is being honored and respectfully has

done it in a great manner. It is a good resolution honoring a true

pioneer, and I am pleased to support the resolution. I yield back

my time.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to be recognized? If not, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution is considered as read and open to amendment at any point and that the

Members proceed with the amendments in the order of the roster.

Without objection, so ordered.

The first amendment on the roster is offered by the gentlelady

from California, Ms. Woolsey. Are you ready to proceed with your

amendment?

Ms. WOOLSEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the

desk.

Chairman GORDON. The Clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. Amendment to H.Con.Res. 95 offered by Ms. Woolsey.

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with

the reading. Without objection, so ordered.

The gentlelady is recognized for five minutes to explain her

amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, in drafting this bill, mention of the

Association for Computing Machinery was inadvertently left out of

my bill, and the amendment simply adds the following whereas

statement, whereas the Association for Computing Machinery, an

international organization of computing professionals, gives the

A.M. Turing Award annually to individuals whose contributions in

the field of computing are long-lasting and are of major technical

importance. That is the end of the change and additions, Chairman.

40

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Ms. Woolsey. 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.

Are there other amendments? Hearing none, the vote is on the

resolution, H.Con.Res. 95 as amended. All those in favor will say

aye, all those opposed no. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes

have it.

I recognize Mr. Hall to offer a motion.

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

report House Concurrent Resolution 95, as amended, to the House

with the recommendation that the bill do pass. Further, I move

that staff be instructed to make necessary technical and conforming changes and that the Chairman take all the necessary

steps to bring the resolution before the House for consideration. I

yield back.

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

resolution favorably. Those in favor of the motion will signify by

saying aye, opposed no. The ayes have it, and the resolution is favorably reported.

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

I move the Members have two subsequent calendar days in which

to submit supplemental minority or additional views on the measure. I move pursuant to Clause 1 of Rule 22 of the Rules of the

House of Representatives that the Committee authorize the Chairman to offer such motions as may be necessary in the House to

adopt and pass H.Con.Res. 95, Honoring the career and research

accomplishments of Frances E. Allen, the 2006 recipient of the A.M.

Turing Award, as amended. Without objection, so ordered.

And finally, let me look at all of you say thank you for being the

hard core and staying here as we completed our business. We had

four good resolutions today, and I want to thank all of you again;

and this meeting is concluded.

[Whereupon, at 11:28 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

(41)

Appendix:

H.CON.RES. 95, AMENDMENT ROSTER

42

43

44

45

(47)

PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE

MARKUP ON H.RES. 316, RECOGNIZING THE

ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF RODGER D.

KORNBERG, ANDREW FIRE, CRAIG MELLO,

JOHN C. MATHER, AND GEORGE F. SMOOT

FOR BEING AWARDED NOBEL PRIZES IN

THE FIELDS OF CHEMISTRY, PHYSIOLOGY

OR MEDICINE, AND PHYSICS

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 25, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room

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

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.

Chairman GORDON. The Committee on Science and Technology

will come to order. Pursuant to notice, the Committee on Science

and Technology meets to consider the following measures, H.R.

1867, the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007;

H.R. 1868, Technological Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 2007; H.Con.Res. 95, Honoring the career and research

accomplishments of Frances E. Allen, the 2006 recipient of the A.M.

Turing Award; and H.Res. 316, Recognizing the accomplishments of

Roger D. Kornberg, Andrew Fire, Craig Mello, John C. Mather, and

George F. Smoot for being awarded Nobel Prizes in the fields of

chemistry, physiology or medicine, and physics.

And we will now proceed with the markup. Today the Committee

is meeting to markup four good, bipartisan bills. The first bill we

will consider today is H.R. 1867, the National Science Foundation

Authorization Act of 2007. H.R. 1867 was introduced by Chairman

Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and other Members of the Research and Science Education Subcommittee. The Subcommittee

met last Wednesday to consider H.R. 1867 and favorably reported

the bill by voice vote after adopting three amendments. I want to

thank and congratulate Members of the Subcommittee for their

hard work and bipartisan cooperation on this excellent bill.

The core of this bill is the three-year authorization that keeps

the Foundation on a ten-year doubling path. NSF is a major source

of federal backing for basic research at universities across all disciplines, and Members of the Science and Technology Committee

often have a difficult time explaining to our constituents and other

48

Members of Congress why it is so important to fund basic research.

The benefits to you and me can seem so intangible in comparison

to many of the other things the Federal Government does. But with

the publicity around the recent reports like Rising Above the Gathering Storm, more of our colleagues and constituents understand

that federally funded research pays enormous dividends to society.

Economic growth, public health, national defense, and social advancements have all been tied to technological developments resulting from basic research. Let me just quickly add that as we

know, there is a long time between basic research and applied research; and what we are talking about really—when we look at the

big problems today, whether they are energy independence, whether it is climate change, whether it is competitiveness, our kids’ and

grandkids’ jobs really are going to depend upon the technology that

is developed today. There are seven billion people in the world, half

of which make less $2 a day. We can’t compete with them at $2.

We don’t want to. So it is the technologies that we are developing

today that are going to let our kids and grandkids be more productive, and that is why it is so important that the National Science

Foundation continue to do its work.

In addition to providing strong research budgets, H.R. 1867 provides important funding for some critical STEM education programs including three K–12 programs this committee expanded

and refined in H.R. 362 which I am happy to say just passed the

House yesterday. And again, I want to thank everyone here for

that bipartisan work. It is a good bill. Mr. Gingrey spoke on it, and

certainly Ralph and others spoke to that. I hope that everybody is

in their local newspapers today because you were all a part of this

bill, and it is a very good bill.

And I am pleased that H.R. 1867 once again reaffirms the critical

role that the National Science Foundation plays with STEM education. This is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it

and continue to work with me to assure that the rest of our colleagues in Congress understand the value of basic research as we

do.

Today we will also take up H.R. 1868, the Technological Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 2007. This is an authorization bill for the programs of the National Institute of Standards

and Technology, NIST. This bill is a bipartisan product of the Technology and Innovation Subcommittee, and I want to commend

Chairman Wu and Ranking Member Gingrey for moving this bill

through the Subcommittee expeditiously. The Science and Technology Committee needs to send a strong signal to the Appropriations Committees about the importance we place on full funding of

NIST. The pace of technology keeps accelerating, particularly in

areas such as biofuels, pharmaceutical biologics, and health care

IT. NIST has an important role to play in the adoption of these

technologies through the creation of standards and the new measurement technologies.

And let me speak just a moment on this. You know, NIST is

probably one of the most under-estimated aspects of the Federal

Government. It was originally meant to take care of measures and

standards. Now it goes much beyond that, and I think it is an

agency that all of us can feel comfortable with because this is not

49

a regulatory agency. This is an agency that brings together the

business community and the manufacturing community, to work

out problems on standards. And I think you are going to find that

our committee here, besides the Technology and Innovation Subcommittee, is going to get a lot more respect within Washington

and elsewhere because of this agency. We are where the Commerce

Committee has been stagnant in terms of health care IT. Ways and

Means hasn’t been able to go forward. We are going to be able to

step forward and solve some of those problems where the health

care community is going to look at the Science and Technology

Committee as the one who made that breakthrough. Financial

services is going to look at us pretty soon as a committee that can

make those kind of breakthroughs because of NIST. So we are

going to continue working on that, and I think you are going to see

NIST help us to make our committee much more relevant.

The Committee is also aware of the important role that the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, plays in keeping good

manufacturing jobs here in the United States, and NIST has a

proven track record of implementing its technology development

programs.

Finally, the last two measures we are considering today,

H.Con.Res. 95 and H.Res. 316 recognize the outstanding achievements of a group of American scientists. It is important that Congress recognize Americans who achieve great things in science, not

just for the satisfaction of individual scientists but to show the public that Congress truly values the work that scientists do.

And now I will recognize Mr. Hall to present his opening statement.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Gordon follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BART GORDON

Good Morning. Pursuant to notice, the Committee on Science and Technology

meets to consider the following measures:

• H.R. 1867, the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007;

• H.R. 1868, Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act of

2007;

• H.Con.Res. 95, Honoring the career and research accomplishments of Frances

E. Allen, the 2006 recipient of the A.M. Turing Award; and

• H.Res. 316, Recognizing the accomplishments of Roger D. Kornberg, Andrew

Fire, Craig Mello, John C. Mather, and George F. Smoot for being awarded

Nobel Prizes in the fields of chemistry, physiology or medicine, and physics.

Today the Committee is meeting to markup four good bipartisan bills. The first

bill we will consider today is H.R. 1867, the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007. H.R. 1867 was introduced by Chairman Baird, Ranking Member

Ehlers and other Members of the Research and Science Education Subcommittee.

The Subcommittee met last Wednesday to consider H.R. 1867, and favorably reported the bill by voice vote after adopting three amendments. I want to thank and

congratulate Members of the Subcommittee for their hard work and bipartisan cooperation on this excellent bill. The core of this bill is the three-year authorization

that keeps the Foundation on a 10-year doubling path.

NSF is a major source of federal backing for basic research at universities, across

all disciplines.

Members of the Science and Technology Committee often have a difficult time explaining to our constituents and other Members of Congress why it is so important

to fund basic research. The benefits to you and me can seem so intangible in comparison to many of the other things the Federal Government funds.

50

But with the publicity around recent reports like ‘‘Rising Above the Gathering

Storm,’’ more of our colleagues and constituents understand that federally-funded

research pays enormous dividends to society. Economic growth, public health, national defense, and social advancement have all been tied to technological developments resulting from basic research.

In addition to providing strong research budgets, H.R. 1867 provides important

funding for some critical STEM education programs, including three K–12 programs

that this committee expanded and refined in H.R. 362, which I am happy to say

just passed the House yesterday.

The education programs at NSF are perhaps more tangible to the typical American, as everybody wants their children to be taught by highly qualified teachers

and to graduate high school and community college prepared for the workforce of

the 21st Century, or to have the opportunity to pursue even higher degrees if they

so desire.

I am pleased that H.R. 1867 once again reaffirms the critical role that NSF plays

in STEM education. This is a good bill. I urge my colleagues to support it, and to

continue to work with me to ensure that the rest of our colleagues in Congress understand the value of basic research as we do.

Today, we’ll also take up H.R. 1868, the Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 2007. This is an authorization bill for the programs of the

National institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

This bill is the bipartisan product of the Technology and Innovation Subcommittee. I want to commend Chairman Wu and Ranking Member Gingrey for

moving this bill through the Subcommittee expeditiously. The Science and Technology Committee needs to send a strong signal to the Appropriations Committee

about the importance we place on full funding for NIST.

H.R. 1868 places the NIST budget on the path to doubling over the next 10 years.

The Science and Technology Committee has always been in the ‘‘amen corner’’ for

fully funding all of NIST.

The pace of technology keeps accelerating—particularly in areas such as biofuels,

pharmaceutical biologics and health care IT. NIST has an important role to play in

the adoption of these technologies through the creation of standards and new measurement technologies.

This committee is also aware of the important role that the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program plays in keeping good manufacturing jobs here in

the U.S. And NIST has a proven track record in implementing its technology development program. H.R. 1868 does an excellent job of balancing and funding these

priorities and everyone on this committee should support this legislation.

Finally, the last two measures we are considering today, H.Con.Res. 95 and

H.Res. 316, recognize the outstanding achievements of a group of American scientists.

It is important that Congress recognizes Americans who achieve great things in

the sciences, not just for the satisfaction of the individual scientists, but to show

the public that the Congress truly values the work that scientists do.

I recognize Mr. Hall to present his opening remarks.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the chance to make

some opening remarks. Of course, as you say, we are considering

two authorization bills relating to the President’s American Competitive Initiative and two resolutions honoring the accomplishments of some very eminent American scientists.

The National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007 authorizes funding for NSF for the next three fiscal years. This measure goes a long way in keeping with the President’s ACI plan to

double the budget within ten years. In fact, it goes slightly beyond

that to incorporate some of the additions to education programs

that the House passed just yesterday.

I appreciate the work of the Subcommittee Ranking Member, Mr.

Ehlers, for his dedication and work on this bill; and I thank the

Chairman and I thank Congressman Baird for their willingness to

cooperate on making this really a truly bipartisan endeavor. I look

forward to our continuing working together to improve this legislation and pass it with broad support.

51

I am also pleased that we are marking up H.R. 1868, the Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 2007.

H.R. 1868 supports the President’s ACI by setting the NIST lab

budget on a path to double by fiscal year 2017. This bill ensures

that America’s small- and medium-sized manufacturers have access

to the latest technologies and processes by authorizing the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program.

Finally, H.R. 1868 authorizes the Technology Innovation Program to promote the swift development of high-risk research into

marketable technologies. And I thank Dr. Ehlers and Dr. Gingrey

for their extensive input into developing this bill, as well as the

staff who dedicated considerable time in this endeavor. Also I want

to thank my Democratic colleagues for incorporating these important priorities in this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I am also pleased this committee will honor six

esteemed American scientists today. H.Con.Res. 95 recognizes the

first woman to receive the prestigious computer science A.M.

Turing Award, Frances Allen. H.Res. 316 honors the five American

scientists who received Nobel Prizes in 2006, Roger Kornberg for

chemistry, Andrew Fire for medicine, Craig Mello for Medicine,

John Mather for physics, and George Smoot for physics.

And before I close, I want to point out that the NSF and NIST

bills as you have said, Mr. Chairman, both major pieces of legislation, were developed after only a few hearings on each topic, only

one in the case of NIST. These hearings were at the subcommittee

level, so only a few Members of the Committee were able to attend

the hearings. Also, with regard to the NIST bill, there was never

a hearing on the New Technology Innovation Program. In fact,

these two bills were put together so quickly we have yet to receive

all the witnesses’ response and questions—their response to the

questions for the record submitted by Members of the Committee.

So Mr. Chairman, while I certainly support these bills in their

current form and once I have received all of the witnesses’ response, I or some other Members may want to propose further

amendments to these bills when they are considered on the House

Floor, and I know you will work with us on that.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I thank you

for laying out a good bill and preparing for a good hearing. I yield

back.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RALPH M. HALL

• H.R. 1867, National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007

• H.R. 1868, Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 2007

• H.Con.Res. 95, Honoring the Career and Research Accomplishments of

Frances E. Allen, the 2006 Recipient of the A.M. Turing Award

• H.Res. 316, Recognizing the accomplishments of Roger D. Kornberg, Andrew

Fire, Craig Mello, John C. Mather, and George F. Smoot for being award

Nobel Prizes in the fields of chemistry, physiology or medicine, and physics.

Thank you, Chairman Gordon, for the chance to make some opening remarks

about today’s markup. Today we are considering two authorization bills related to

the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) and two resolutions honoring the accomplishments of eminent American scientists.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) Authorization Act of 2007, H.R. 1867, authorizes funding for NSF for the next three fiscal years. This measure goes a long

52

way in keeping with the President’s ACI plan to double the budget within ten years.

In fact, it goes slightly beyond that to incorporate some of the additions to education

programs that the House passed yesterday. I appreciate the work of the Subcommittee Ranking Member, Mr. Ehlers, for his dedication and work on this bill

and thank the Chairman and Mr. Baird for their willingness to cooperate on making

this a bipartisan endeavor. I look forward to our continuing to work together to improve this legislation and pass it with broad support.

I am pleased to be an original co-sponsor of H.R. 1868, the Technology Innovation

and Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 2007. H.R. 1868 supports the President’s ACI

by setting NIST’s lab budget on a path to double the budget by fiscal year 2017.

The bill will ensure America’s small- and medium-sized manufacturers have access

to the latest technologies and processes by authorizing the Manufacturing Extension

Partnership Program. Finally, H.R. 1868 authorizes the Technology Innovation Program to promote the swift development of high-risk research into marketable technologies. I thank Dr. Ehlers and Dr. Gingrey for their extensive input in developing

this bill and my Democratic colleagues for incorporating our priorities into this bipartisan legislation.

I also am pleased the Committee will honor six esteemed American scientists

today. H.Con.Res. 95 recognizes the first woman to receive the prestigious computer

science A.M. Turner award, Frances Allen. H.Res. 316 honors the five American scientists who received Nobel prizes in 2006: Roger Kornberg for chemistry; Andrew

Fire for medicine; Craig Mello for medicine; John Mather for physics; and George

Smoot for physics.

Before I close, I want to point out that the NSF and NIST bills, both major pieces

of legislation, were developed after only one hearing on each topic. Those hearings

were at the Subcommittee level, so only a few Members of the Committee were able

to attend the hearings. In the case of the NIST bill there was never a hearing on

the new Technology Innovation Program. In fact, these two bills were put together

so quickly that we have yet to receive all of the witnesses’ responses to questions

for the record submitted by Members of this committee. Therefore, Mr. Chairman,

while I support these bills in their current form, once I have reviewed all of the witnesses responses I, or other Members, may want to propose further amendments to

these bills when they are considered on the House Floor.

With that I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Hall. Let me assure you that

we want to continue to work in the spirit that we have to get good

bills. You know, the last NIST authorization was in 1992 out of

this committee. It has been five years since we had a National

Science Foundation authorization. There have been lots of hearings

in between, but you know, it is time to get something done; and

we want to have the best bill possible, and you can be absolutely

assured that we will continue with that collaboration.

Without objection, Members may place statements in the record

at this point.

We will now consider H.Con.Res. 316, Recognizing the accomplishments of Roger D. Kornberg, Andrew Fire, Craig Mello, John

C. Mather, and George F. Smoot for being awarded the Nobel Prize

in the fields of chemistry, physiology or medicine, and physics.

Mr. McNerney is not here right now but let me say I very much

appreciate the attendance here at the end. Oh, and here he is. We

were going to proceed anyway because you were so good to stay but

since Mr. McNerney is here, I would recognize him for opening remarks.

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing that

dramatic entrance. And I also thank Ranking Member Hall for

your support in this resolution for working quickly to ensure that

we recognize a deserving group of scientists on their important

achievements. I especially appreciate the opportunity to describe

this legislation that highlights the contributions of American scientists.

53

H.Res. 316 is a scientific work not only because it applauds the

breakthrough of scientific work but the bill also draws attention to

many of the issues we frequently work on in the Committee, putting a spotlight on scientific discovery as a way to inspire a new

generation to become involved in fields that they might otherwise

ignore.

For the first time in over 20 years U.S. researchers have swept

the scientific categories of the Nobel Prize by winning awards for

chemistry, physiology or medicine, and physics. It is fitting that we

recognize the contributions of these individuals, and I am proud

that we are doing so here today.

In December of last year, the Nobel Prize in chemistry was

awarded to Roger Kornberg from Stanford University in my home

State of California, the physiology prize went to Andrew Fire who

works also at Stanford in the school of medicine, and the physics

award went to John Mather from NASA’s Goddard Space Center

and to George Smoot from the University of California at Berkeley.

Mr. Smoot has also the timely distinction of adding his name to

the list of more than 170 National Science Foundation grantees

who were awarded the Nobel Prizes over the years. I am sure that

with the improvements we have just made to programs at NSF and

the dedication that we all have to moving this country forward,

Professor Smoot will certainly not be the last Nobel Prize winner

to benefit from NSF funding.

H.Res. 316 officially recognizes the accomplishments of these scientists and their contributions to improving society.

Mr. Chairman, I can’t think of a better way to honor these individuals and commend them for helping the United States sweep

science Nobel Prizes for the first time in 33 years. As I look out

here, I see a number of young scientists and implore you to continue your work. We will do our work here in the Committee to see

that you get the money you need and the recognition, and you need

to work as hard as you can to fulfill your visions and your dreams

of making new awards and new discoveries in science.

I thank you and I yield back the back of my time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. McNerney follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MCNERNEY

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

And thank you, Ranking Member Hall, for your support of this resolution and for

working quickly to ensure that we recognize a very deserving group of scientists on

their important achievements.

I appreciate the opportunity to describe this legislation that highlights the contributions of American scientists.

H.Res. 316 is significant, not only because it applauds breakthrough scientific

work, but the bill also draws attention to many of the issues we frequently work

on in this committee; putting the spotlight on scientific discovery as a way to get

young people interested in fields they might otherwise ignore.

For the first time in more than 20 years, U.S. researchers swept the scientific categories of the Nobel Prize by winning the awards for chemistry, physiology or medicine, and physics.

It is fitting that we recognize the contributions of these individuals, and I’m

pleased that we’re doing so here today.

In December of last year the Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded to Roger

Kornberg from Stanford University in my State of California; the physiology prize

went to Andrew Fire, who also works at Stanford—in the School of Medicine—and

the physics award went to John Mather from NASA’s Goddard Space Center and

to George Smoot from the University of California at Berkeley.

54

Mr. Smoot also has the timely distinction of adding his name to the list of more

than 170 NSF grantees who were awarded Nobel Prizes over the years.

I’m sure that with the improvements we’ve just made to the programs at NSF,

and the dedication that we all have to moving this country forward, Professor Smoot

will certainly not be the last Nobel winner to benefit from NSF funding.

H.Res. 316 officially recognizes the accomplishments of these scientists and their

contributions to improving society.

Mr. Chairman, I can’t think of a better way to honor these individuals and commend them for helping the U.S. sweep the science Nobel Prizes for the first time

in 33 years.

Thank you, and I yield my time.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you for those remarks, and I will remind everyone that these are not only significant awards for individuals, but this is really an award for America that we would

sweep these and that these Nobel Prize winners will be honored at

a luncheon next week here in the Science Committee Room; and we

welcome everyone to join.

And I recognize Mr. Hall to present any remarks on the resolution.

Mr. HALL. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to support

the resolution. I would like to add that these men are true testaments to the spirit of American innovation. In an increasingly competitive world, it is impressive that our Nation continues to

produce world-class scholars such as these men. It really doesn’t

surprise me that the Nation that invented the light bulb and put

a man on the Moon fosters such innovative solutions to the most

pressing challenges. It is my hope that our innovation agenda will

continue to provide a foundation from which scholars and entrepreneurs can launch their ideas into the competitive marketplace

as these men have done. I yield back.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Hall, and I think our NSF

authorization and our NIST authorization today will help accomplish what you had suggested.

Does anyone else wish to be recognized? Dr. Baird.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, very briefly, during our debate on

H.R. 362 and 363, I observed that we need to embody—we spoke

about the need to improve respect for science and math education

nationwide, and I suggest that we need to embody that with the

Congress, and I observe that we tend to offer more resolutions congratulating athletic teams or movie stars than we do honoring

sciences; and I very much commend Mr. McNerney for reversing

that trend and it is richly deserved that we honor and that the

Congress really embody the principle of honoring these scientists

with this resolution. I commend him for it and thank him for offering this resolution.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you. And once again, we invite everyone to come meet them next week.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak to this resolution?

If not, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution is considered

as read and open to amendment at any point and that Members

proceed with amendments in the order of the roster. Without objection, so ordered.

Are there any amendments? Hearing none, the vote is on the resolution, H. Res. 316. All those in favor say aye, all those opposed

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

I recognize Mr. Hall to offer a motion.

55

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

report House Resolution 316 to the House with the recommendation that the bill do pass. Furthermore, I move that staff be instructed to make necessary technical and conforming changes and

that the Chairman take all the necessary steps to bring the resolution before the House for consideration. I yield back my time.

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

resolution favorably. Those in favor of the motion will signify by

saying aye, opposed no. The ayes have it. The resolution is reported

favorably. Without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon

the table. I move the Members have two subsequent calendar days

in which to submit supplemental minority or additional views on

the measure. I move pursuant to Clause 1 of Rule 22 of the Rules

of the House of Representatives that the Committee authorize the

Chairman to offer such motions as may be necessary in the House

to adopt and pass H.Res. 316, Recognizing the accomplishments of

Dr. Roger D. Kornberg, Andrew Fire, Craig Mello, John C. Mather,

and George F. Smoot for being awarded the Nobel Prizes in the

fields of chemistry, physiology or medicine, and physics. Without

objection, so ordered.

And finally, let me look at all of you say thank you for being the

hard core and staying here as we completed our business. We had

four good resolutions today, and I want to thank all of you again;

and this meeting is concluded.

[Whereupon, at 11:28 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

(57)

Appendix:

H.RES. 316

58

59

60

(61)

ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY–

ENERGY

——————

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

Technology, submitted the following:

R E P O R T

[To accompany H.R. 364]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Science and Technology, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 364) to provide for the establishment of the

Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy, having considered the

same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.

CONTENTS

Page

I. Amendment ............................................................................................ 62

II. Purpose of the Bill ................................................................................. 64

III. Background and Need for the Legislation ........................................... 64

IV. Committee Views ................................................................................... 65

V. Hearing Summary ................................................................................. 67

VI. Committee Actions ................................................................................. 68

VII. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill ............................................ 70

VIII. Section-by-Section Analysis (by Title and Section) ............................. 70

IX. Dissenting Views ................................................................................... 72

X. Cost Estimate ......................................................................................... 75

XI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ........................................ 75

XII. Compliance with Public Law 104–4 ..................................................... 77

XIII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations ...................... 77

XIV. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives ................. 77

XV. Constitutional Authority Statement .................................................... 77

XVI. Federal Advisory Committee Statement .............................................. 77

XVII. Congressional Accountability Act ......................................................... 77

XVIII. Earmark Identification .......................................................................... 77

XIX. Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law .................. 77

XX. Committee Recommendations ............................................................... 77

XXI. Exchange of Letters ............................................................................... 78

XXII. Proceedings of the Subcommittee Markup .......................................... 81

XXIII. Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup ........................................ 127

62

I. AMENDMENT

The amendment is as follows:

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) The United States faces a range of energy challenges that affect our

economy, security, and environment. Fundamentally, these challenges involve

science and technology.

(2) The Department of Energy already has some of the mechanisms necessary to promote long-term research, but it lacks the mechanisms for quickly

transforming the results into technology that meets national needs.

(3) A recent report of the Secretary of Energy’s Advisory Board’s Task Force

on the Future of Science Programs at the Department of Energy concluded that

America can meet its energy needs only if we make a strong and sustained investment in research in physical science, engineering, and applicable life

sciences and if we translate advancing scientific knowledge into practice.’’

(4) The Department of Defense, since 1958, has used its Defense Advanced

Projects Research Agency (DARPA) for aggressively addressing real-time defense problems through targeted programs of research and technology development that have improved our national defense through transformational technologies.

(5) The National Academy of Sciences’ report entitled ‘‘Rising Above the

Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic

Future’’ recommends creating a new agency within the Department of Energy

to sponsor ‘‘creative, out-of-the-box, transformational, generic energy research in

those areas where industry by itself cannot or will not undertake such sponsorship, where risks and payoffs are high.’’ Such an organization would be able to

accelerate the process by which research is transformed to address energy-related economic, environmental, and security issues to decrease dependence on

foreign energy through targeted research and technology development.

SEC. 2. ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY-ENERGY.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established the Advanced Research Projects

Agency–Energy (in this Act referred to as ‘‘ARPA–E’’) within the Department of Energy.

(b) GOALS.—The goals of ARPA–E are to enhance the Nation’s economic and

energy security through reductions in imports of energy from foreign sources, to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases from the energy and industrial sectors, to improve energy efficiency of all economic sectors, and to ensure that the United States

maintains a technological lead in developing and deploying energy technologies.

ARPA–E will achieve this by—

(1) identifying and promoting revolutionary advances in fundamental

sciences with potential energy and environmental applications;

(2) translating scientific discoveries and cutting-edge engineering innovations into technologies that promote energy security and sound environmental

stewardship; and

(3) accelerating the market adoption of transformational technological advances in areas such as alternative fuels and transportation technology, energy

efficiency, electricity production and infrastructure, and carbon capture and sequestration.

(c) DIRECTOR.—ARPA–E shall be headed by a Director who shall be appointed

by the Secretary of Energy. The Director shall report to the Secretary. No other programs within the Department of Energy shall report to the Director of ARPA–E.

(d) RESPONSIBILITIES.—The Director shall administer the Fund established

under section 3 to award competitive grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts

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 stated in subsection (b) through targeted acceleration of—

(1) novel early-stage energy research with possible technology applications;

(2) development of techniques, processes, and technologies, and related testing and evaluation;

(3) development of manufacturing processes for technologies; and

63

(4) demonstration and coordination with non-governmental entities for commercial applications of technologies and research applications.

(e) PERSONNEL.—

(1) PROGRAM MANAGERS.—The Director shall designate employees to

serve as program managers for each of the programs established pursuant to

the responsibilities established for ARPA–E under subsection (d). Program managers shall be responsible for—

(A) establishing research and development goals for the program, including through the convening of workshops and conferring with outside experts as well as publicizing its goals to the public and private sectors;

(B) soliciting applications for specific areas of particular promise, especially those which the private sector alone cannot or will not provide funding;

(C) building research collaborations for carrying out the program;

(D) selecting on the basis of merit, with advice under section 4 as appropriate, each of the projects to be supported under the program following

consideration of—

(i) the novelty and scientific and technical merit of the proposed

projects;

(ii) the demonstrated capabilities of the applicants to successfully

carry out the proposed research project;

(iii) the applicant’s consideration of future commercial applications

of the project, including the feasibility of partnering with a commercial

entity or entities to help increase the chances of market penetration;

(iv) such other criteria as are established by the Director; and

(E) monitoring the progress of projects supported under the program,

and prescribing program restructure or termination of research partner

ships or whole projects that do not show promise.

(2) HIRING AND MANAGEMENT.—In hiring personnel for ARPA–E, the

Secretary shall have the hiring and management authorities described in section 1101 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 1999 (5 U.S.C. 3104 note). For purposes of subsection (c)(1) of that section,

the term of appointments for employees may not exceed three years before the

granting of any extension. In hiring initial staff the Secretary shall give preference to applicants with experience in the Defense Advanced Research Projects

Agency, academia, or private sector technology development. The Secretary or

Director may contract with private recruiting firms in hiring qualified technical

staff.

(3) ADDITIONAL HIRING.—The Director may hire additional technical, financial, managerial, or other staff as needed to carry out the activities of the

program.

(f) COORDINATION AND NON–DUPLICATION.—To the extent practicable,

the Director shall ensure that the activities of ARPA–E are coordinate with, and do

not duplicate the efforts of, existing programs and laboratories within the Department of Energy and other relevant research agencies. Where appropriate, the Director may coordinate technology transfer efforts with the Technology Transfer Coordinator established in section 1001 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16391).

(g) FEDERAL USE of TECHNOLOGIES.—The Secretary shall seek opportunities to utilize federal agencies’ purchasing and procurement programs to demonstrate technologies resulting from activities funded through ARPA–E and to facilitate their entry into private markets.

SEC. 3. FUND.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established in the Treasury the Energy

Transformation Acceleration Fund (in this Act referred to as the ‘‘Fund’’), which

shall be administered by the Director of ARPA–E for the purposes of carrying out

this Act.

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Director of ARPA–E for deposit in the Fund $300,000,000 for fiscal

year 2008 $1,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2009 $1,100,000,000 for fiscal year 2010,

$1,200,000,000 for fiscal year 2011, and $1,300,000,000 for fiscal year 2012, to remain available until expended.

(c) LIMITATION.—No amounts may be appropriated for the first year of funding for ARPA–E unless the amount appropriated for the activities of the Office of

Science of the Department of Energy for that fiscal year exceed the amount approVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:49 Jan 05, 2009 Jkt 037729 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\110MAR~1\37729\37729.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
64

priated for that Office for fiscal year 2007, as adjusted for inflation according to the

Consumer Price Index.

(d) ALLOCATION.—Of the amounts appropriated for a fiscal year under subsection (b)—

(1) not more than 50 percent shall be for activities under section 2(d)(4);

(2) not more than eight percent shall be made available to Federally Funded Research and Development Centers;

(3) not more than 10 percent may be used for administrative expenses;

(4) at least 2.5 percent shall be designated for technology transfer and outreach activities; and

(5) during the first five years of operation of ARPA–E, no funds may be

used for construction of new buildings or facilities.

SEC. 4. ADVICE.

(a) ADVISORY COMMITTEES.—The Director may seek advice on any aspect

of ARPA–E from—

(1) existing Department of Energy advisory committees; and

(2) new advisory committees organized to support the programs of ARPA–

E and to provide advice and assistance on—

(A) specific program tasks; or

(B) overall direction of ARPA–E.

(b) APPLICABILITY.—Section 14 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act shall

not apply to advisory committees organized under subsection (a)(2).

(c) ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF ADVICE.—The Director may seek advice and

review from the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy for Engineering, and any other professional or scientific organization with expertise in specific

processes or technologies under development by ARPA–E.

SEC. 5. ARPA–E EVALUATION.

After ARPA–E has been in operation for 54 months, the President’s Committee

on Science and Technology shall begin an evaluation to be completed within 12

months) of how well ARPA–E is achieving its goals and mission. The evaluation

shall include the recommendation of such Committee on whether ARPA–E should

be continued or terminated, as well as lessons-learned from its operation. The evaluation shall be made available to Congress and to the public upon completion.

SEC. 6. SAVINGS CLAUSE.

The authorities granted by this Act are in addition to existing authorities granted to the Secretary of Energy, and not intended to supersede or modify any existing

authorities.

II. PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of the bill is to establish within the Department of

Energy, the Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA–

E), and set up an Energy Transformation Acceleration Fund to conduct activities under the Act.

III. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

H.R. 364 follows a recommendation of the National Academies

2005 report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, also known as the

‘‘Augustine Report’’ for its Chair, retired Lockheed Martin CEO

Norman Augustine. In addition to a wide range of recommendations for boosting the global competitiveness of the U.S. technology

sector, this report called on the Federal Government to create a

new energy research agency within the Department of Energy patterned loosely on the successful Defense Advanced Research

Projects Agency (DARPA) within the Department of Defense. 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 itself cannot or will

not undertake such sponsorships, where risks and potential payoffs

65

are high, and where success could provide dramatic benefits for the

Nation. ARPA–E would accelerate the process by which research is

transformed to address economic, environmental, and security

issues. 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.’’ In addition to H.R. 364, a number of bills establishing an ARPA–E were

introduced in both the 109th and 110th Congress in both the House

and Senate (including S. 696, the Energy Research Act of 2007, and

S. 761, the Senate COMPETES Act).

Despite the growing focus on energy challenges, R&D investment

in energy remains far below the historically high levels of the

1970’s. A GAO report commissioned by Chairman Gordon and Congressman Honda noted that ‘‘DOE’s total budget authority for energy R&D dropped by over 85 percent (in real terms) from 1978 to

2005, peaking in the late 1970’s but falling sharply when oil prices

returned to lower levels in the mid-1980’s.’’ (GAO–07–106) Witnesses at the April 26 Subcommittee hearing all agreed that for

ARPA–E to be successful, the program must be funded at levels to

match the magnitude and complexity of energy challenges, and the

high costs of energy research and technology demonstration. According to venture capitalist and Subcommittee witness John

Denniston:

‘‘... federal spending on renewable energy research amounts to

little more than $1 billion per year. Frankly, this is inadequate

relative to the scope of our problems, and the sheer size of the

energy and transportation industries which amount to over $1.8

trillion annually. We are way off scale.’’

It was suggested in the hearing that no other technology-based

industry has such a small proportion of revenues invested in research, either through private or government resources. It was

pointed out in the hearing that the National Institute of Health receives $28 billion for research annually, and DARPA itself was initially budgeted for the equivalent of $3.5 billion, and remains at

roughly the same level today.

IV. COMMITTEE VIEWS

The primary motivations of the Committee for establishing an

ARPA–E are the need for the U.S. to obtain more energy from domestic sources, become more energy efficient, and become less reliant on energy sources and technologies that have an adverse effect

on the environment. The push for new energy technologies is especially urgent given the geopolitical forces that threaten global energy supplies and economic stability, the rising costs of energy to

consumers, the looming threat of global climate change, and probable regulation of carbon dioxide emissions. In addition to addressing the Nation’s energy challenges, the Gathering Storm report also

concluded that ARPA–E will contribute to U.S. competitiveness by

playing an important role in ‘‘advancing research in engineering,

the physical sciences, and mathematics; and in developing the next

generation of researchers.’’ While isolated elements in the national

labs, industry, and academia have collaborated with varying degrees of success, there is currently no federal program charged with

66

bringing these elements together. Such an effort would result in a

stronger and more diverse domestic community of researchers and

technology developers focused on pushing transformational energy

solutions into the marketplace. ARPA–E is intended to play this

critical role.

To pursue truly innovative and transformational research

ARPA–E will utilize an organizational structure and approach

projects in a way that is fundamentally different from that of the

traditional energy research enterprise. Critics of the Department of

Energy’s management of research programs contend that the stovepiped structure and bureaucratic culture of DOE is not conducive

to the rapid development of cross-cutting energy solutions, or 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 peer review system tends to favor established investigators pursuing incremental advances in well-understood concepts. On the contrary ARPA–E will be driven by its mission, minimizing interaction with the DOE bureaucracy. It should be a relatively flat and nimble organization, similar to the small, flexible,

non-hierarchical reporting structure that supported a unique and

highly successful culture of innovation at DARPA.

ARPA–E will also have autonomy within DOE similar to that of

DARPA within DOD. Because the director of ARPA–E reports directly to the Secretary of Energy, and no other programs report to

ARPA–E, it does not add another layer to the DOE bureaucracy.

This also ensures that ARPA–E has a unique independence within

DOE, it is not beholden to any one particular technology area or

research program within DOE. To address concerns about political

pressures to direct ARPA–E funding, language was added to further ensure that all projects funded by ARPA–E will be evaluated

on the basis of merit. Bureaucratic and political meddling are the

main impediments ARPA–E is designed to avoid.

ARPA–E’s unique function is best described as that of a ‘‘marriage broker’’ that can identify people and capabilities within industry, universities, and the national labs, and assemble hybrid research teams to quickly develop novel solutions to pressing energy

problems. Key to this function is the Program Manager. As in

DARPA, Program Managers for ARPA–E should be exceptionally

talented, creative and knowledgeable, experienced in industry or

academia, and passionate in pursuit of their objectives. Because of

the flexible hiring authority that is written into Section 2 of the

bill, talented Program Managers can be recruited from a variety of

fields, hired for a term of approximately three years, and paid a

salary commensurate with what they would make in the private

sector. To allow ARPA–E to pursue truly novel technology areas,

projects will not undergo the traditional peer-review process. Instead, Program Managers and their superiors are given extraordinary autonomy and resources to pursue unique technology pathways at will, to assemble quickly teams of researchers and technology developers, and to just as quickly change course or terminate research projects that do not look fruitful. This is different

from the current DOE model which is criticized for requiring inordinate amounts of time to start up research projects, not looking

67

broadly enough for research participants, and then sustaining support for projects and people beyond a timeframe where meaningful

results are likely.

ARPA–E is expected to pursue a ‘‘whatever it takes’’ approach to

moving potentially transformational research and technologies from

the labs to the marketplace. With adequate funding and authority

ARPA–E will leverage its resources and institutional capabilities to

engage in activities across the entire innovation spectrum. This includes anything from early-stage basic research into fundamental

concepts with possible technology applications, to later-stage technology prototyping, large-scale demonstrations and commercial applications.

Investment in ARPA–E should be seen in the context of increasing overall energy R&D expenditures enough to address the scope

and complexity of the challenges. It is not intended for funding of

ARPA–E to come at the expense of other research accounts within

DOE, especially the basic research of the Office of Science, and language was added in the Full Committee markup to further clarify

that. The Gathering Storm report calls for ARPA–E to be authorized at $300 million in the first year, and quickly escalate to $1 billion within five years. Responding to concerns on the part of the

witnesses and other outside stakeholders, the Committee chose to

pursue a more aggressive funding profile that matches the scale of

the challenge, the costs of energy research, and the likelihood that

ARPA–E funding would not continue to grow gradually over time.

Initial funding for ARPA–E in H.R. 364 is set at $300 million, and

increases to $1 billion in the second year to allow ARPA–E to be

fully operational more quickly. Though no provision was included

to address this, the hearing witnesses and others have suggested

that a high-cost, risk-tolerant program like ARPA–E would be most

effective if it has a dedicated stream of funding, and would therefore not be subject to annual political and financial pressures and

fluctuations that stifle innovation today. Future Administrations

and Congresses should consider a range of mechanisms that ensure

steady and reliable funding for ARPA–E.

V. HEARING SUMMARY

On March 9, 2006 the House Committee on Science held a hearing to review the concept of an ARPA–E (House Report 109–39).

The Committee received testimony from the following witnesses.

• Dr. Steven Chu—Director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Nobel Prize winner, and member of the

National Academies panel that recommended establishing an

ARPA–E.

• Dr. Catherine Cotell—Vice President for Strategy, University and Early-Stage Development at In-Q-Tel, a firm established by the Central Intelligence Agency to gain access to

new technologies emerging from small startup companies.

• Dr. Fernando L. Fernandez—former Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) from

1998 to 2001.

68

• Ms. Melanie Kenderdine—Vice President, Washington Operations, for the Gas Technology Institute, and former Director of the Office of Policy in the Department of Energy.

• Dr. David Mowery—Professor of New Enterprise Development at the Haas School of Business, University of California at Berkeley.

On April 26, 2007 the House Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a hearing

on H.R. 364. The Subcommittee received testimony from the following witnesses:

• Mr. John Denniston—partner in the venture capital firm

of Kleiner Perkins Caufield and Byers, and energy technology investor.

• Mr. William Bonvillian—Director of the Washington Office

of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and former

Senate staff on legislation establishing HS–ARPA at the Department of Homeland Security.

• Dr. Stephen Forrest—Vice President for Research at the

University of Michigan, which recently established the

Michigan Memorial Phoenix Energy Institute.

• Dr. Richard Van Atta—senior researcher at the Science &

Technology Policy Institute of the Institute for Defense Analysis, and one of the leading experts on DARPA history.

VI. COMMITTEE ACTIONS

H.R. 364 was introduced by Chairman Gordon on January 10,

2007, and referred to the House Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment. This bill was

first introduced as H.R. 4435 in the 109th Congress. In the 109th

Congress, the House Committee on Science held a hearing on

March 9, 2006 examining the concept of an ARPA–E (Committee

Print. 109–39).

On Thursday, May 10, 2007 the Subcommittee on Energy and

Environment met to consider H.R. 364 and the following amendments to the bill:

1. An amendment offered by Mr. Lampson, Ms. Giffords, and

Mr. Bartlett that adds additional goals for greenhouse gas

emissions, efficiency, and economic competitiveness; clarifies

reporting structure, personnel responsibilities, activities,

and participants; specifies desired experience of some personnel and limits terms to three years; specifies coordination and non-duplication with DOE and other agencies; increases authorization levels; sets guidelines and limits for

funding allocations for demonstration and commercial application, federally funded R&D Centers, overhead expenses,

and new construction. The amendment was agreed to by

voice vote.

2. An amendment offered by Ms. Biggert that replaces text

with directions to DOE and NAS to study ARPA–E concept

and make recommendations on implementation. The

amendment was defeated by voice vote.

69

Ms. Giffords moved that the Subcommittee favorably report the

bill, H.R. 364, as amended, to the Full Committee. The motion was

agreed to by voice vote.

On Wednesday, May 23, 2007 the Full Committee on Science and

Technology met to consider H.R. 364 and the following amendments to the bill:

1. A manager’s amendment offered by Mr. Gordon that expands hiring authorities of the Director; clarifies the Program Manager’s role in changing and terminating projects;

changes the name of the fund; strikes the last year of

funding; and strikes the section on recoupment. The

amendment was agreed to by voice vote.

2. An amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.

Hall, Mr. Gingrey, and Ms. Biggert that makes technical

and substantive changes to various sections of the underlying bill. The amendment was defeated by recorded vote of

24–12.

3. An amendment offered by Mr. Inglis to provide for a oneyear protection for existing funding levels for the Office of

Science; directs the program managers of ARPA–E to select projects on the basis of merit; enhances technology

transfer and outreach activities. The amendment was

agreed to by voice vote.

4. An amendment offered by Ms. Biggert conditioning appropriated funds for ARPA–E in any fiscal year on the appropriation of the full authorization amount under section

971(b) of EPAct 2005 for the previous year. The amendment was defeated by recorded vote of 19–11.

5. An amendment offered by Ms. Biggert striking the eight

percent funding limit on funding for Federally Funded Research and Development Centers. The amendment was defeated by recorded vote of 23–13.

6. An amendment offered by Mr. Ehlers to have the Under

Secretary of Energy for Science appoint the Director of

ARPA–E and have the Director report to the Under Secretary of Energy for Science. The amendment was defeated

by voice vote.

7. An amendment offered by Mr. Bilbray which strikes the

funding section of the bill. The amendment was defeated by

voice vote.

8. An amendment offered by Mr. Smith of Nebraska to provide for termination of ARPA–E if the study required

under section 1821 of EPAct 2005 concludes that ARPA–

E should not be established. The amendment was defeated

by recorded vote 25–13.

9. An amendment offered by Mr. Gingrey to halt appropriations for ARPA–E unless the study required under section

1821 of EPAct 2005 is completed and concludes that

ARPA–E should be established. The amendment was defeated by recorded vote 25–13.

70

10. An amendment offered by Mr. Akin that adds a new section providing for termination of ARPA–E after 60 months.

The amendment was defeated by voice vote.

11. An amendment offered by Mr. Diaz-Balart, presented by

Mr. McCaul, that adds a new section terminating ARPA–

E after five years if energy imports do not decrease by at

least five percent from date of enactment, and after 10

years if imports do not decrease by at least 20 percent

from date of enactment. The amendment was defeated by

recorded vote of 23–12.

12. An amendment offered by Mr. Gingrey that adds a new

section creating a savings clause. The amendment was

agreed to by voice vote.

The bill was approved for final passage by a recorded vote of 25–

12. Mr. Lampson moved that the Committee favorably report the

bill H.R. 364, as amended, to the House for consideration. The motion was agreed to by voice vote.

VII. SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE BILL

H.R. 364 authorizes $4.9 billion for ARPA–E for the fiscal years

2008–2012, with initial year funding contingent on an increase in

the DOE Office of Science. The bill also outlines the organizational

structure, hiring practices, goals, and activities of ARPA–E. The

bill specifies that, to the extent practicable, ARPA–E will not duplicate the specific efforts of other research programs, will coordinate

with those programs wherever possible, and seek opportunities to

demonstrate technologies within the Federal Government. Specific

guidelines are set for the proportion of funds that may be used for

overhead expenses, late-stage demonstration and commercial applications, federally funded research and development centers, new

construction, and technology transfer and outreach activities. After

roughly five years of operations ARPA–E will be evaluated by the

President’s Committee on Science and Technology.

VIII. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Findings

The U.S. should address long-term energy challenges through sustained investment in energy research programs at DOE augmented by an innovative and aggressive new energy technology development effort based on the same operating principles that make DARPA successful.

Section 2. Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy

This section establishes the Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA–

E) within the Department of Energy. Similar to the Department of Defense’s Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), this new organizational structure will

support revolutionary and transformational energy research where risk and payoffs

are high.

The stated goal of ARPA–E is to enhance the Nation’s economic and energy security through research and development of technologies that reduce U.S. dependence

on foreign energy sources, improve energy efficiency of the U.S. economy, reduce the

impact of the energy sector on the environment, and ensure the U.S. leadership in

developing energy technologies. To achieve this ARPA–E will support collaborative,

targeted, high-risk, high payoff research to accelerate the innovation cycle for transformational energy technologies.

ARPA–E shall be headed by a Director, appointed by the Secretary. No other program within DOE will report to ARPA–E. The Director will administer competitive

grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts to universities, private companies, research foundations, industry collaborations, and consortia. These consortia can inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:49 Jan 05, 2009 Jkt 037729 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\110MAR~1\37729\37729.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
71

clude federal laboratories, in addition to the aforementioned parties, and can be led

by federal laboratories. Funds may be used for activities in any stage of the innovation spectrum from early-stage basic research to late-stage demonstration. A special

emphasis should be placed on activities that serve to bridge between these stages

and, ultimately, across the ‘‘valley of death’’ to commercial applications of the technologies.

The organizational structure of ARPA–E should be flat and nimble to avoid bureaucratic impediments that stifle innovation today. The Director shall designate

Program Managers who will have flexibility in establishing R&D goals for the program, publicizing goals, convening workshops of potential research participants,

issuing solicitations, selecting projects and building research teams, monitoring

their progress, and prescribing restructuring or elimination of projects as needed.

Program managers will make selections for all projects under ARPA–E based on

merit, taking into account factors such as novelty, scientific and technical merit, applicant’s capabilities, the applicant’s consideration of commercial applications of the

research and inclusion of commercial partner, and other criteria as the Director determines. As with DARPA, the Director of ARPA–E will have special authority to

hire program managers and other technical, managerial, and financial staff for limited terms, and at a salary commensurate with what such staff would expect to

make in the private sector. In finding and attracting qualified and specialized staff

the Director may contract with outside recruiting firms.

In addition, the Director shall ensure that ARPA–E’s activities do not duplicate

and are coordinated with other federal research and technology transfer programs,

and shall seek opportunities to demonstrate ARPA–E research and technologies

through procurement in the Federal Government.

Section. 3. Fund

This section establishes the Energy Transformation Acceleration Fund administered by the Director of ARPA–E. $4.9 billion is authorized for FY 2008 through

2012, to remain available until expended. Funding for the initial year of ARPA–E

operations shall not be available unless the DOE Office of Science funding increases

from the previous year (2007).

This section also lays out general guidelines for how money should be allocated

in a given fiscal year. Not more than 50 percent of funds allocated shall be for expensive late-stage demonstrations and commercial applications of technologies and

research. Not more than eight percent of funds are to be made available directly

to Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs). However,

FFRDCs can receive, in addition to the eight percent, payment for services from

ARPA–E grantees, contractors, cooperative agreement participants regardless of the

source of funds. Not more than 10 percent of funds shall be used for administrative

expenses. To ensure a robust technology transfer and outreach activities, 2.5 percent

of funds shall be dedicated to these activities. To ensure ARPA–E funds go towards

funding research within the Nation’s existing private and public research infrastructure, for the first five years, no funds should be used for construction of new buildings or facilities.

Section 4. Advice

The Director of ARPA–E has the flexibility to seek advice either from an existing

DOE advisory committee, or to establish a new advisory committee. The Director

may also seek advice and review from the National Academies of Science and Engineering, and any other professional or scientific organization.

Section 5. ARPA–E Evaluation

At the end of five and one-half years, the President’s Committee on Science and

Technology (PCAST) shall complete an evaluation of the performance of ARPA–E in

achieving its goals and mission, to be made available to Congress and the public.

In this evaluation the Committee is required to recommend whether ARPA–E

should be continued or terminated as well as provide lessons-learned from its operation.

Section 6. Savings Clause

This clarifies that authorities granted by this Act are in addition to, and do not

supersede or modify, existing authorities of the Secretary of Energy.

72

IX. DISSENTING VIEWS

DISSENTING VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVES RALPH M. HALL, JUDY BIGGERT,

JO BONNER, TOM FEENEY, RANDY NEUGEBAUER, MICHAEL T. MCCAUL,

MARIO DIAZ–BALART, PHIL GINGREY, BRIAN BILBRAY AND ADRIAN SMITH

We oppose H.R. 364, to provide for the establishment of the Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy. The bill would create an

unnecessary bureaucracy at the Department of Energy (DOE) that

the agency does not want and does not support. Furthermore, we

are concerned with authorizing $4.9 billion for a new agency that

is likely to compete with existing programs for increasingly limited

federal dollars. It poses a direct threat to DOE’s Office of Science,

which was singled out to receive priority funding in the October

2005 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report, Rising Above the

Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future, on which the bill is said to be based.

We see the potential benefit that ‘‘creative, out-of-the-box, transformational’’ research could provide to our country. However, we

have yet to be convinced that the DOE, as currently structured,

cannot support, and does not already support, such research. For

example, some Members of the Committee believe that the DOE’s

FreedomCAR and Hydrogen Initiatives, FutureGen, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, and U.S. participation in ITER, the

international fusion experiment, already qualify as ‘‘creative, outof-the-box, transformational’’ research.

While the Department of Defense’s (DOD) Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) has proven to be largely a success

at DOD, differences in the structure and culture of the DOD and

DOE should not be ignored. Just because something works at DOD,

does not mean it will work at DOE. A case in point is the creation

of the Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency. According to the testimony of William Bonvillian, ‘‘While the Committee provided HS–ARPA with a strong and flexible authorization

closely modeled on DARPA’s strengths, HS–ARPA has never been

adequately utilized or implemented. . .. An innovation culture is

critical to success, and legislation alone can’t create this unless the

implementing agency shows real leadership, supports the new R&D

mission, and is determined to use flexible statutory authorities to

create a strong entity.’’ The lack of support by the current Secretary and Administration suggests that, in the face of such opposition, ARPA–E would likely fail.

We would also point out that the bill strays from the Rising

Above the Gathering Storm report’s ARPA–E recommendation

which states that ARPA–E should report to the Under Secretary

for Science. Instead, the bill explicitly states, ‘‘The Director shall

report to the Secretary.’’ It also appears that the NAS panel never

received outside advice or testimony on the ARPA–E idea. Furthermore, the recommendation to create an ARPA–E was the only one

of 20 action items in the Gathering Storm report not to receive the

unanimous support of the panel. One of the panel members, the energy industry representative, dissented from the recommendation

of the panel. Like a number of Members of the Committee, he expressed concern that a new DARPA-like agency at DOE would put

the government in the position of picking technology winners and

73

losers for the private sector. Unlike DARPA, whose primary customer is the Federal Government, ARPA–E is supposed to pick

technologies for the private sector, which in contrast to the government is much more sensitive to cost and price. Recognizing the legitimacy of this other perspective on the ARPA–E concept, even the

NAS report acknowledged that, ‘‘some believe that industry and

venture capital investors will already fund the things that have a

reasonable probability of commercial utility (the invisible hand of

the free markets at work), and what is not funded by existing

sources is not worthy of funding.’’ Last Congress, the House passed

H.R. 6203, which included a provision directing the Secretary, with

the National Academy of Sciences, to conduct a detailed study of,

and make further recommendations on, the NAS recommendation

to establish an ARPA–E. It included the following pertinent questions:

1) What basic research related to new energy technologies is

occurring now, what entities are funding it, and what is

preventing the results of that research from reaching the

market?

2) What economic evidence indicates that the limiting factor in

the market penetration of new energy technologies is a lack

of basic research on path-breaking new technologies? What

barriers do those trying to develop new energy technologies

face during later stages of research and development?

3) To what extent is the Defense Advanced Research Projects

Agency an appropriate model for an energy research agency,

given that the Federal Government would not be the primary customer for its technology and where cost is an important concern?

4) How would research and development sponsored by ARPA–

E differ from research and development conducted by the

National Laboratories or sponsored by the Department

through the Office of Science, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the Office of Fossil Energy,

the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, and

the Office of Nuclear Energy?

5) Should industry or National Laboratories be recipients of

ARPA–E grants? What institutional or organizational arrangements would be required to ensure that ARPA–E

sponsors transformational, rather than incremental, research and development?

While the bill was not signed into law, the questions still remain.

This was confirmed during a recent Energy and Environment Subcommittee hearing at which all the witnesses agreed that the NAS

recommendation was vague and really just an ‘‘idea.’’ One of the

witnesses, John Denniston, a partner with the firm Kleiner, Perkins, Caufeld & Byers, said, ‘‘I don’t think that the Gathering

Storm report provided implementation details. I view it as an idea.

So, they don’t talk specifically about which technologies, fossil, nuclear, renewable. They don’t talk about stage of research, should it

be translational, is it basic, is it applied? They don’t talk about the

organizational details, much of which you have heard today.’’

74

Section 1821 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) also contained a study on the applicability of the management practices

used by DARPA and the advisability of creating an ARPA–E. This

study was to have been completed by January of 2007. On May 22,

2007, Ranking Member Hall along with 13 other Members of this

committee sent a letter to Secretary of Energy Bodman urging the

agency to complete the study and implement Section 1401 of

EPAct. Section 1001 of EPAct directed the Secretary to appoint a

Technology Transfer Coordinator and establish a Technology

Transfer Working Group.

As an alternative to the bill, Ranking Member Hall along with

Members Gingrey, and Biggert offered a substitute, which was defeated, addressing the aforementioned concerns with the bill. The

substitute recognized that while the Department of Energy has the

authority to promote technology transfer of basic and applied research, a need exists to quickly identify opportunities to accelerate

the commercial application of new energy technologies to meet the

Nation’s energy needs. As well, a fully integrated approach to advanced energy research will help bridge the gap between basic research and applied technology, thus overcoming long-term and

high-risk barriers to the development of advanced energy technologies. The substitute conditioned the establishment of ARPA–E

on the Section 1821 study in EPAct putting forward a recommendation that the management practices used by DARPA

would apply to research programs at DOE.

The substitute amendment did not create a new agency, but required the Secretary to use existing authority coupled with newly

established DARPA like hiring authority to undertake ARPA–E

type projects. It authorized $750 million over five years for the Secretary to carry out the projects and required the Secretary to report

to Congress on their status. It permitted the Secretary to coordinate with other agencies on advanced energy projects, directed the

Secretary to coordinate with the to-be-appointed Technology Transfer Coordinator, allowed the Secretary to award prizes for achievement under an advanced energy research project, and established

cost sharing according to that provided in the Energy Policy Act of

2005.

While we have the utmost respect for the Chairman and for the

positive manner in which debate on this bill ensued, we believe the

substitute addressed the goals sought by the Committee in a more

responsible and effective manner. Thus we are unable to support

H.R. 364 in its current form.

75

X. 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 XI of this report pursuant to House Rule XIII,

clause 3(c)(3).

H.R. 364 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. 364 does authorize additional discretionary spending, as described in the Congressional Budget Office report on the bill, which is contained in

Section XI of this report.

XI. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

Summary

H.R. 364 would authorize the appropriation of $4.9 billion over

the 2008–2012 period for the Department of Energy (DOE) to establish the Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA–E).

ARPA–E would award competitive grants, cooperative agreements,

and contracts for the research and development of projects with potential energy and environmental applications. CBO estimates that

implementing H.R. 364 would cost $4.1 billion over the 2008–2012

period, assuming the appropriation of the specified amounts. Enacting H.R. 364 would have no effect on direct spending or revenues.

H.R. 364 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).

The bill would benefit public institutions of higher education and

76

any costs they may incur would result from complying with conditions of federal assistance.

Estimated Cost to the Federal Government

The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 364 is shown in the following table. The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 250 (general science, space, and technology).

Basis of Estimate

For this estimate, CBO assumes that the bill will be enacted in

fiscal year 2007 and that the amounts authorized by the bill will

be appropriated for each fiscal year. H.R. 364 would authorize the

appropriation of $4.9 billion over the next five years to establish

ARPA–E within DOE.

The mission of the new agency would be to reduce energy imports and greenhouse gas emissions, improve energy efficiency, and

develop and deploy energy technologies. To meet these goals,

ARPA–E would award competitive grants, cooperative agreements,

and contracts to institutions of higher education, research foundations, private companies, and collaborations of trade and industry.

Such awards would be used to identify and promote significant advances in basic sciences that have potential energy and environmental applications, translate these discoveries into workable technologies, and accelerate their market adoption.

Based on the historical spending patterns of similar programs

(notably the DOE Office and Science and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), CBO estimates that implementing H.R.

364 would cost $165 million in 2008 and $4.1 billion over the 2008–

2012 period, assuming appropriations at the levels specified in the

bill.

Intergovernmental and Private-Sector Impact

H.R. 364 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA. Funding authorized by the bill may

benefit public institutions of higher education that compete for

funds in connection with the research goals of ARPA–E. Any costs

that they might incur would result from complying with conditions

of federal assistance.

Estimate Prepared By:

Federal Costs: Daniel Hoople

Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Lisa Ramirez-Branum

Impact on the Private Sector: Craig Cammarata

77

Estimate Approved By:

Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis

XII. COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4

H.R. 364 contains no unfunded mandates.

XIII. 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.

XIV. STATEMENT ON GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause (3)(c) of House rule XIII, the goals of H.R. 364

to enhance energy research and development through the establishment within the Department of Energy of the Advanced Research

Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA–E), and by setting up an Energy

Independence Acceleration Fund to conduct activities under the

Act.

XV. CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

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

grants Congress the authority to enact H.R. 364.

XVI. FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

The functions of the advisory committee authorized in H.R. 6063

are not currently being nor could they be performed by one or more

agencies or by enlarging the mandate of another existing advisory

committee.

XVII. CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

The Committee finds that H.R. 364 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).

XVIII. EARMARK IDENTIFICATION

H.R. 364 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited

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

or 9(f) of Rule XXI.

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

This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local, or tribal

law.

XX. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

On May 23, 2007, the Committee on Science and Technology favorably reported H.R. 364, as amended, by a recorded vote of 25

to 12 and recommended its enactment.

78

XXI. EXCHANGE OF LETTERS

79

(81)

XXII: PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARKUP BY THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT ON H.R. 364, TO PROVIDE FOR THE

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY–ENERGY

THURSDAY, MAY 10, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:15 a.m., in Room

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Nick Lampson

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

Chairman LAMPSON. The Subcommittee on Energy and Environment will come to order. Pursuant to notice, the Subcommittee on

Energy and Environment meets to consider the following measures:

H.R. 364, To provide for the establishment of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, and H.R. 632, the H–Prize Act of

2007.

We will now proceed with the markup beginning with opening

statements and I will begin.

Today we will consider two bills that represent another step of

the Committee’s effort to push the envelope of technological possibility and provide the American people a future with cheaper,

cleaner and better energy options.

For decades my district has been synonymous with oil and gas

or energy generally. To a large extent it has been the economic

foundation for that area, for the great State of Texas and even for

the Nation. And the truth is that we should expect that oil, gas and

other traditional sources of energy such as coal and nuclear will

provide much of our nation’s energy for decades to come.

But the winds of change are indeed blowing. And the folks in my

district know as well as anyone the predicament that we face in

sky-high energy prices, the environmental impacts of our energy

use and the critical need for maintaining jobs in the energy sector.

In this respect, the Nation faces a challenge like none we have

encountered before. Unlike the Apollo and Manhattan Projects

which galvanized our nation’s scientists to win a global race to put

a man on the Moon or create a ‘‘weapon to end all wars’’ there is

no finish line in this race. We are attempting to transform a national and to some extent global economy which is based on only

82

a handful of unsustainable energy resources. Resources that we

know will simply not last.

Despite their remarkable technological advances, we cannot expect the energy industry and the current programs at the Department of Energy to tackle these problems on their own. Only

through ground-breaking research and the development of truly

transformational technologies can we begin to match up to the

scale and the complexity of these challenges.

Now this requires from us a rock solid commitment to innovative

energy R&D and a leap of faith that somewhere on the shelves of

our national labs or in the garages in our nation’s inventors or in

the halls of research universities there are discoveries and technologies waiting to be exploited by a new energy industry.

The two bills that we are here to mark up today represent the

kind of bold efforts that are needed in advancing energy research

and ensuring that the United States maintains a lead in these

emerging technology fields. Therefore, I urge their passage and

look forward to getting them to the House Floor.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Lampson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN NICK LAMPSON

Today we will consider two bills that represent another step in this committee’s

efforts to push the envelope of technological possibility, and provide the American

people a future with cheaper, cleaner, better energy options.

For decades my district has been synonymous with oil and gas (or Energy, generally). To a large extent it has been the economic foundation for this area, for the

great State of Texas, and even for the Nation.

And the truth is that we should expect that oil, gas and other more traditional

sources of energy, such as coal and nuclear, will provide much of our nation’s energy

for decades to come.

But the winds of change are blowing, and the folks in my district know as well

as anyone the predicament we face in sky-high energy prices, the environmental impacts of our energy use, and the critical need for maintaining jobs in the energy sector.

In this respect, the Nation faces a challenge like none we have encountered before. Unlike the Apollo and Manhattan projects, which galvanized our nation’s scientist to win a global race to put a man on the Moon, or create a ‘‘weapon to end

all wars,’’ there is no finish line in this race.

We are attempting to transform a national, and to some extent global, economy

which is based on only a handful of unsustainable energy resources. Resources that

we know will simply not last.

Despite their remarkable technological advances, we can’t expect the energy industry, and the current programs at the Department of Energy to tackle these problems on their own.

Only through ground-breaking research, and the development of truly transformational technologies, can we begin to match up to the scale and complexity of

these challenges.

This requires from us a rock-solid commitment to innovative energy R&D, and a

leap of faith that somewhere on the shelves of our national labs, in the garages of

our nation’s inventors, and in the halls of our research universities, there are discoveries and technologies waiting to be exploited by a new energy industry.

The two bills that we are here to markup today represent the kind of bold efforts

that are needed in advancing energy research, and ensuring the U.S. maintains a

lead in these emerging technology fields.

Therefore I urge their passage, and look forward to getting them to the House

Floor.

Chairman LAMPSON. I will now recognize Mr. Inglis to present

his opening remarks.

Mr. INGLIS. And I thank the Chairman for yielding. First of all,

we are very happy to have you back in the Chair, Mr. Lampson.

It is——

83

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you very——

Mr. INGLIS.—great to——

Chairman LAMPSON.—very much.

Mr. INGLIS.—have you back. You are looking great and——

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you.

Mr. INGLIS.—healthy and all of that, now you had some capable

folks filling in for you. But we are——

Chairman LAMPSON. I am very appreciative——

Mr. INGLIS.—but we are happy to have you back.

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you very much.

Mr. INGLIS.—and, you know, it is helpful to be here today talking

about energy and two different bills that can help us achieve some

of the objectives that we have.

Sometimes people wonder about those objectives. My wife was at

a gathering a couple of months ago and a lady told her Bob has

got to stop talking about energy so much. We are tired of hearing

from him about energy. I would note that as the price of gasoline

is now above three dollars a gallon that probably Marianne would

have a different message coming from that lady now and that it is

good to focus a lot on energy. So it depends on what the price at

the pump is as to whether we think it is a great thing to focus on.

But the objective of these bills today is to look long-term and not

to the gas prices that fluctuate up and down based on the month.

I do hope that we take the message from those gas prices, that

they are volatile. They will go up and down. But the long-term trajectory has to be up. And so therefore we are looking for energy

sources besides those.

And so today two bills that help us get to there—to that place

of energy independence, we hope, one is, ARPA–E, which is designed to create breakthrough technology opportunities, and the

other, the H–Prize Bill, which is even a little bit longer-term proposition, but that can hopefully lead us to a new source of energy. So

we are happy to be here marking up these bills, Mr. Chairman. I

have got a more complete opening statement that I would like to

submit for the record.

Chairman LAMPSON. With no—without objection.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Inglis follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE BOB INGLIS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this markup on the establishment of the

H–Prize and ARPA–E. The bills we discuss today represent a common goal: harnessing American innovation to meet our need for energy and improve our energy

security.

One hundred years ago, the space travel concept was madness. Forty years ago,

only a select group of elite astronauts could visit the Moon. Ten years ago, just a

handful of visionaries thought that the highway to space would soon open to all

travelers. Today, paying customers can pre-book flights to space, and in two years,

from their seat on a space plane, they will take digital pictures of the Earth to share

with their friends and family back home.

Twelve short years mark the gap between science fiction and commercial space

flight. Imagination and innovation bridged the gap. In 1996, Peter Diamandis joined

forces with the Ansari family of investors and created the X–Prize, offering $10 million to the first reusable sub-orbital space vehicle. Eight years later, Burt Rutan’s

SpaceshipOne won the prize, launching into sub-orbital space flight twice in two

weeks. Shortly after, Richard Branson teamed up with Rutan, and Virgin Galactic

will soon convert a space-age science project into a new tourist industry.

The energy industry in 2007 looks a lot like the space flight sector did in 1996.

We’ve seen important incremental gains, but overall innovation has slowed. We deVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:49 Jan 05, 2009 Jkt 037729 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\110MAR~1\37729\37729.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
84

pend on volatile fossil fuels, scratch our head at how to deal with carbon emissions,

and get more and more frustrated with each cent increase in the cost of gasoline.

We know that there has to be a better way to do energy.

Taking a prize approach to the energy problem allows our imagination to run with

the prospects of coupling a pioneering vision with a hydrogen prize, or H–Prize, incentive for innovation in hydrogen energy. Our history tells us that what starts with

an imaginative dream or vision typically finishes in a legacy of American innovation. There’s a multi-billion, if not trillion, dollar industry that we can create from

a hydrogen energy source free of emissions, renewable, cost-effective, and Americanmade.

Imagine an inventor in Spartanburg, SC and an entrepreneur in Greenville

teaming up to work on the challenge of hydrogen storage. The entrepreneur secures

a license for metal hydride storage material from the Hydrogen Research Center at

the Savannah River National Lab. The inventor is a retiree from the Oak Ridge National Lab, with a lifetime of experience in alternative fuels. They’ve heard about

the H–Prize, and it’s provided the spark to light the fuse of their imagination. The

Discovery Channel has a new idea for a show on alternative fuels, and has agreed

to follow their progress.

They set to work improving the material to store more hydrogen at lower weight,

and a year later they submit their work to the H–Prize judging panel for best incremental gain in storage technology. Their careful work wins the prize, and they’ve

got $1 million to show for it. They use part of the money to pay their investors, but

they convince their investors that they could win even bigger in the prototype competition. They assemble a small team and get to work.

After a year of all-nighters and Ramen noodles, they have their prototype for a

storage subsystem. The Discovery Channel has the beginnings of a new reality show

(who knew scientists could be so caddy?). Their metal hydride dust could fill the

frame of a car, safely providing the hydrogen fuel and eliminating the need for a

fuel tank. BMW loves the idea and before their team even won the $4 million prize

for best prototype, BMW is competing to license their technology for the next

version of the Hydrogen 7 sedan.

Now the team’s investors are really buzzing. They’ve partnered with automotive

engineering departments at several universities and are hard at work designing a

new mass-producible vehicle at Clemson University’s International Center for Automotive Research in Greenville. They’ve got their eyes on the grand prize for transformational technologies. Duke Power has become a partner to provide economical,

carbon-free hydrogen from nuclear power. A local gasoline marketer has jumped in

to help with distribution, offering modified fuel trucks running on biodiesel and

pump space for hydrogen. Corporate investors from around the world are pitching

in to get their logo—NASCARstyle—on the car, fueling station, and everything in

between.

The South Carolina team is only one of many around the country, but the Discovery Channel cameras testify that their hearts are in it to win. Over the course

of five years, Team Palmetto assembles, jimmy-rigs, and invents the technologies to

take them to the top. The judges deem them the best, and they receive the $10 million cash prize for their hard work. Of course, at this point their investors see that

more gains lie ahead, so the team easily raises $40 million in venture capital, which

is matched by other private money for corporate sponsorship of the H–Prize. Within

three years, their emission-free HyFlyer cars zipping along the East and West Coast

Hydrogen Highways, in Europe, and even Japan and China.

It’s not so farfetched. The prize idea has worked in the past, from the Transcontinental Railroad, to Lindbergh and the Orteig Prize, to Burt Rutan and the X–

Prize. Others see the prize working in the future: the Automotive X–Prize, Rep.

Frank Wolf’s NSF prize, Rep. Dan Lungren’s Automotive Prize. H–Prize has the advantage of focusing on a far reaching technology where breakthroughs are needed

and harnessing the American innovative and entrepreneurial spirit to tackle those

challenges.

Prize money is one seed from which energy technology and industry can grow. But

it will not be the only source for energy breakthroughs. There is still a need for research and development funding for our nation’s scientists, labs, and universities.

The ARPA–E bill that we will markup today addresses a need to sponsor exploration in high-risk endeavors.

ARPA–E research could offer a big payoff in the commercial energy market. At

the same time, I already see real payoffs coming from existing DOE research, especially hydrogen, nuclear, wind, and solar programs. I’m concerned that the ARPA–

E fund will divert funds away from these existing programs and jeopardize the advances we’re already seeing in these areas. I hope that we can find a way to ensure

this doesn’t happen.

85

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you on these two

bills.

Mr. INGLIS. Thank you. I look forward to the markup here.

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you very much, Ranking Member

Inglis. And I think it is appropriate because we have the Chairman

of the Science Committee here with us today, Mr. Bart Gordon,

that we give him an opportunity to make some comments. Mr.

Chairman?

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Chairman Lampson. And let me

also say welcome back and——

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you.

Chairman GORDON.—we are glad that you are looking fit as a

fiddle. I will say in your absence that Ms. Giffords did an excellent

job with a very informative hearing the other day.

Chairman LAMPSON. Believe it or not, I heard that all the way

down in Texas.

Chairman GORDON. So, you better look over your shoulder. And

Mr. Inglis, you know almost all of Former Chairman Boehlert’s

opening statements, I would say I concur. And let me continue that

by saying I concur with your opening statement. And particularly,

in not taking the short view of this. You know, back in the ’70s if

we had followed through on some of the initiatives that we talked

about we would not be in this situation now.

Now to this bill. And I want to thank you for bringing up H.R.

364. If you read the Washington Post this morning on the top lefthand side you saw where Mayor Fenty had gotten into some trouble because he had plagiarized some of the statements in a Charlotte, North Carolina program that was similar to his efforts to

take over the school system here. So I want to make it very clear

today that I am plagiarizing with permission. This is not a Bart

Gordon Bill. This is not a Democratic bill. This is not a Republican

bill. This is simply putting into legislative language the recommendations of the Rising Above the Gathering Storm.

And we are familiar with this. I will not belabor it. But quickly

to say, when we ask them to look at competitiveness of American

21st Century, they had two recommendations: one with the Math

and Science skills and the other was energy independence. And

this was prior to the price of oil going up. And I think they were

very farsighted in seeing that. And so, that is what we attempt to

do today.

It is a bill that is modeled after, and once again on their suggestions, the successful DARPA program. It has a nimble organization

with a minimal amount of administrative layers. Its purpose is to

look at high-risk high-reward areas that the private sector will not

invest in. This is the basic of the basic research. And you also have

to keep in mind that since the ’80s that the federal energy technologies R&D, is down 85 percent. And so this is a very important

way.

And I think the key to it is again looking at those high risk

areas, bringing the public sector to the private sector or national

labs, the universities, everyone together to crash on these and to

make some real breakthroughs. I know that a number of the Committee Members met this weekend with the International Energy

Association. And you will remember in talking about it they see

86

sort of a three-legged stool to energy independence as well as dealing with the climate change. One is conservation. The second is

better use of our existing energy sources. And the third is this type

of transformational technology. Not only for new types of technology but also to use our existing types of fuels better. So I think

this is very important.

I know that there will be some that say that the authorizing

level is too high. Let me say the authorizing level is the recommendation from the Rising Above the Gathering Storm that the

appropriators ultimately in the House Floor will determine what is

the actual appropriation. But I think that it is wise to give flexibility. Others might say that well, you know, the Energy Department is doing a good job. Let us do not, you know, throw something

else in there. Well, if you are satisfied with status quo then we do

not need this. I am not. I think we can do a better job. I think this

is an important bill.

I thank the Subcommittee for the good hearings that they have

had and I thank them for bringing up this bill. And I yield back

my time.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Gordon follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BART GORDON

I would like to thank Chairman Lampson and the other Members of the Energy

& Environment Subcommittee for their assistance in bringing H.R. 364, a bill to establish an Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy, before the Subcommittee

this morning.

I first introduced this bill in the 109th Congress in response to recommendations

in the National Academies report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm.

This report recognized that the U.S. dependence on traditional energy sources and

outdated technologies puts us in a perilous position.

We cannot afford to wait until we face severe disruptions to fossil energy supplies

or serious impacts from climate change to address this challenge.

The Gathering Storm report recommended establishing ARPA–E, modeled on

DARPA’s successful innovation model, to sponsor creative out-of-the-box, transformational energy research in those areas where the private sector cannot or will

not invest on its own.

DARPA succeeded largely because it fostered a culture of innovation. We cannot

legislate an agency’s culture. But we can set up a nimble organization with minimal

administrative layers and the ability to quickly start and stop research programs.

These elements are key to the success of ARPA–E, and to transforming energy R&D

from the laboratory bench into market-ready technologies.

This transformation simply won’t happen on the cheap. We must commit to providing adequate resources to get us there. We simply have not been making the

kind of investments needed to move us into a new energy future.

During the past 35 years, we have become more dependent upon foreign energy

supplies and greenhouse gas emissions have grown so that we face an uncertain future due to climate change.

During this same time period, federal investment in energy technology R&D has

declined by 85 percent from its peak in 1978. We must reverse this trend.

Investment in ARPA–E must be seen as the first step in boosting energy research

and development to a level that addresses the true scale of the challenge before us,

and the true cost of doing transformational research.

Establishing an ARPA–E in H.R. 364 is a bold step, but we’ve got to be willing

to push this envelope, make some tough but firm commitments to get the job done.

I appreciate my colleagues’ support, and I look forward to continuing to work with

all of you as this legislation moves forward.

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I note that

Ranking Member Hall is not here right now and when he comes

in he will also be called on for opening remarks that he might want

87

to make. Without objection, Members may place statements in the

record at this point.

We will now consider H.R. 364 to provide for the establishment

of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy. I yield five minutes to Mr. Gordon to describe this bill.

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I think that I have and I will

not take the Committee’s time to do it again. I think that we have

had adequate hearings on it. It is a bipartisan bill with many cosponsors and I think my earlier opening remarks accomplished

that. So I will yield it back but would certainly be open to any

questions that anyone would like to have for clarification.

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I recognize

Mr. Inglis to present any remarks he has on the bill.

Mr. INGLIS. And, you know, I might ask the Chairman a couple

of questions as part of that. There are some questions over here.

We think that we share the same vision. We also are excited about

investing in this kind of breakthrough technology. That is what we

have been talking about for a long time on this committee. There

are some questions and maybe you can help clear them up.

One of the challenges of the Department of Energy has been a

bunch of earmarks that have eaten up the money that was available to pursue projects that would really be breakthroughs. Do you

have any sense that in the setup that we are going to be able to

avoid that scenario—that with the six billion that we would authorize that somehow we can protect it from earmarks for less than optimal demonstration projects?

Chairman GORDON. If the Chairman—or if the Ranking Member

would yield, I think that we saw that in DARPA that we did not

see any type of earmarks. Within the National Science Foundation

you do not see earmarks.

Mr. INGLIS. Right.

Chairman GORDON. And so this committee should, I think, be on

full record as saying that there should not be earmarks. I mean,

there is not going to be a lot of projects. There is only going to be,

you know, maybe seven or eight projects. And we need to put the

full resources toward those. So I would work with you in any way

to avoid that.

Mr. INGLIS. Yeah, because that would be a major concern of mine

is figuring out a way to follow the NSF model, which functions so

well and has excellence and pursues really good things. But—and

I hope you share the concern that the Department of Energy—we

have had, for example, in the hydrogen area. The reports we get

back from the DOE folks is we could make some progress in this

area if it were not for spending money on member-directed initiatives into small, not likely to produce many results, kind of things.

And——

Chairman GORDON. If the gentleman would yield, you know, potentially, for whatever it is worth, I think we should put report language into this bill to that effect and would be glad to work with

you in any way to accomplish that. And I think, you know, we as

a committee need to stand firm on the floor against anything like

that.

Mr. INGLIS. Well, that would be helpful and help me—as to say

we share the same vision and maybe a number of the same goals

88

and strategies. The concern that I have is that it really has to do

with making something in DOE working right.

Chairman GORDON. If the Ranking Member would yield, I would

consider that this was a failure if that happened. I mean, it is completely contrary to the purpose of ARPA–E and it would be a failure. And I will work with you in any way to avoid that. And let

me also say that we are going to have, there is going to be an

amendment, I think, that encompasses a variety of recommendations that have been made from both sides. And rather than have

a markup next week at the Full Committee level, you know, I

would like to postpone that for two weeks so that we can continue

to work in a collaborative effort over these next two weeks if there

is anything else that comes up like that because again I think this

is a good bill but it can be made better as there are questions

raised. So I would, you know, would work with you in any way we

can do to accomplish our common goal.

Mr. INGLIS. I would be happy to yield back for the rest of my

opening statement. It was not an opening statement. I had some

questions. But that is helpful here at the Committee.

Chairman LAMPSON. Ms. Biggert.

Ms. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too would like to welcome you back. I have a question, first of all, for counsel, if I might

and then a question for Chairman Gordon. I would like to know is

there a definition of consortia in the current law or is it a procurement term of art? And does it speak to a lead entity? It is cited

in the bill on page four, lines six through 19.

Chairman LAMPSON. On page four, the consortia that is intended

in this bill—I am not aware that it is defined in current law. And

this does refer to consortia of institutions of higher education and

companies or consortia that may include federally funded research

and development centers.

Ms. BIGGERT. Does it——

Chairman LAMPSON. It does not designate a lead entity.

Ms. BIGGERT. All right. Then Chairman Gordon, we have worked

so hard, I think, to increase the funding for the Office of Science

and I think that it really has gone up. Even this year we wrote a

letter to make sure that—and it was put into the supplemental—

that we would increase that money to keep the labs open at that

point. I believe, and I think we all believe, in basic research and

development. How do we ensure that the money that goes to the

basic research, the Office of Science, does not provide an offset to

put more money into ARPA–E?

Chairman GORDON. If the gentlelady would yield, first to your

concern about consortium, if you feel that that needs to be better

defined then certainly we need to work to accomplish that. You

know, I mean, there are no guarantees around here. I certainly do

not think that should happen. What our purpose is—there is, for

lack of a better term, a bit of a trust fund that is going to be created with the recruitment from some of the tax breaks from the oil

industry. And I think this will be the major source for that. Again,

I think we need to do more, not less.

I think there are really two different types of research. This is

going to be cutting-edge research things that the Office of Science

is not doing now. And it will be under that kind of microscope. It

89

will have to be more nimble and be able to get things done. It will

be working with the labs. And I, you know, I would like to give you

a guarantee, but there are no guarantees other than that I would

certainly oppose that.

Ms. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman. I have concerns about the

fact that we authorize the funds and then the appropriators are the

ones that actually determine the amounts and that is where we

lose control of this, that——

Chairman GORDON. Well, if the gentlelady would yield. Again,

this is a different concept. And it—and if you think that status quo

at whatever funding level within the Department of Energy on cutting-edge technology is working, then maybe we do not need this.

But if you think that we do need breakthroughs than this is an important—if you want to say—I do not even think it is a risk. I

think this is something that has to be done.

Ms. BIGGERT. I do have some concerns and we will discuss that

later, but let me go back then to consortia. There is no definition

in this. Is there a definition in the Federal Acquisition Regulations?

Chairman GORDON. I am not aware of a definition.

Ms. BIGGERT. I think we need to work on that to make sure that

we define exactly how that would work. And my concern is whether

you have, let us say, a couple of scientists from a national lab and

they have an idea and wanted to use this, can they be the lead entity? I mean, it would—that they would have to either go to a university or they would have to go to a company in order to be able

to proceed with their scientific discovery.

Chairman GORDON. If the gentlelady would yield. I will read you

the language here: ‘‘The Director shall administer the fund established under Section 3 to award competitive grants, cooperative

agreements or contracts to institutions of higher education, companies or consortia or such entities which may include federally funded research and development centers to achieve the goals stated.’’

And then it goes on.

Ms. BIGGERT. The question——

Chairman GORDON. Let me tell you what I think it means. It

means that the director will be able to look again at the private

sector, the public sector, the labs, the universities, anyone that is

doing some work in a particular area, bring the best of that together. That is my intention. And if you do not think that our language accomplishes that then we will try to get better language.

Ms. BIGGERT. Thank you. I think in putting on my lawyer hat

that the way that it is written is that you have got two institutions

of higher education——

Chairman GORDON. Yes.

Ms. BIGGERT.—companies or—and this is where—if it said competitive grants to institutions of higher education, companies, federal funded research and development centers or a consortia of

such——

Chairman GORDON. Yeah.

Ms. BIGGERT.—you see——

Chairman GORDON. Well, if the gentlelady will yield. I think

often times—and I am sure you are concerned about labs. And the

labs are——

Ms. BIGGERT. Obviously.

90

Chairman GORDON.—consortium, you know, in most situations.

It would be my expectation that in most anything you do here the

labs are going to play a major role. I do not know where there is

more expertise than in the labs. So this is not—if—this is not an

effort to take them out. If anything, it is to step up what they are

doing in those areas. And we will work to get that——

Ms. BIGGERT. Okay.

Chairman GORDON.—language so that it is so reflected.

Ms. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman and yield back.

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you, gentlelady. Does anyone else

wish to be recognized? Mr. Balart.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to first

have my words to let you know—express that we are very happy

that you are back and you look good and we know you are in for

the fight again, so it is great to have you back.

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you very much.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. My question—obviously the intent is one that

we will share and is good. My question would be what is the cost

of the actual Department going to—how much is that going to cost?

In other words, I understand what it is trying to do, but it would

seem to me that if there is a way to do it without creating a new

entity, a new bureaucracy, that that would be the preferable way

to do it, if it is possible. So the question is why is that not possible?

And also, if you have some numbers on the cost—preliminary numbers on what the cost actually is of the actual department.

Chairman GORDON. If the gentleman would yield. What we are

trying to do is de-bureaucrat it. We may not share this view, I

think, within previous Democratic and Republican administrations.

Many think that once ideas get into the bureaucracy of the Department of Energy they sometimes get stuck in the mud. What we

want to do is have a very lean operation here with as few administrators as possible. And it is pulling these groups together. So, you

know, again I think we are trying to accomplish what you want to

see done. To the question of the cost, the authorization level would

be $300,000 in the first year going up to a billion dollars thereafter.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GORDON. I yield back.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I clearly

understand what the intent is and I applaud the intent. And you

are absolutely right that obviously things do get stuck in the mud,

so to speak, as you said, sir, in the Department of Energy. My only

question is, I mean, we are dealing here with the Federal Government. And we are dealing with a new department in the Federal

Government. Not in, you know, even the State of Florida or not

even in some foreign country. When you are dealing with a new department in the Federal Government—and I am just concerned,

but I am not questioning the sponsor’s intent. But creating a new

department is something that frankly does not seem to be in my

view a solution to create less bureaucracy. Because when you are

dealing with the Federal Government, federal departments are the

bureaucracy, are the problems, are the cause of all the mud—

things stuck in the mud. So it is——

Chairman GORDON. If the gentleman would yield.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Yes, sir.

91

Chairman GORDON. I need to correct myself. I said $300,000. It is $300 million to start. So, pardon me. Again, I would say that

DARPA demonstrated that—and some would say that sometimes

things get stuck in the Department of Defense, too, and that

DARPA demonstrated that when you can take an agency out of

that bureaucracy, make it lean. And again, what they are doing

is—this is not layers. It is a project manager that then is trying

to bring together, again, the public sector, private sector labs to accomplish something. And so I do not think they could do it any

other way. And again, the private sector clearly is not going to

make these kinds of cutting-edge recommendations—or cuttingedge investments. And if you think that somehow the department

is going to turn over a new leaf and do this better than they have

over decades than maybe this is not a good idea. I do not have that

confidence.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your indulgence.

And I appreciate it. I do not have—I clearly do not have the years

of experience that you do have here. Obviously in a perfect world

what one would do is task people who are already there in that

huge department to get it done as opposed to creating a new department; which for somebody who has not been here that long

frankly sounds counter-intuitive that, in order to shrink the bureaucracy you create a new one. That just sounds counter-intuitive

for someone who does not have the experience as you all. And that

is why to me it is kind of a hard sell.

Chairman GORDON. If the gentleman would yield.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. And again, thank you for your indulgence and

I——

Chairman GORDON. Oh, sure. If the gentleman would yield. I will

not take offense with you calling me an old man. Experience is different altogether. And let me, you know, again, we are getting into

things that maybe are not fully accurate. And I would hate to say

it publicly, but there are those that think that a lot of the real talented folks within the Department of Energy have been poached

out into the private sector. There are those who say a lot of the talented people get frustrated with the bureaucracy there and leave.

And so we want to pay more. You know, I mean, we want to pay

well and have an exciting challenge so that you can bring the very

best people in the world. If they are the very best people for the

Department of Energy, we ought to get them. If the very best person is in Exxon or is in anywhere else, let us go get them and bring

them into this. That is what we want to try to accomplish. I yield

back.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Chairman, can I have one last question?

Again, you have been very generous with allowing me to——

Chairman GORDON. Certainly. I will point out—and—I think we

are going to have votes in a few minutes here, but that should

not—this is too important to rush. But I will just—I will point that

out. Yes, sir. I welcome your question.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you. And again, you have been extremely kind with time, Chairman. Just this—will this new department have a different setup? Will people be able to get fired or is

there going to be pretty much the same federal protections that

people have in other departments so that once you are there basiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:49 Jan 05, 2009 Jkt 037729 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\110MAR~1\37729\37729.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
92

cally—it is almost impossible to get fired? Because obviously if it

was different—if it was an innovative new kind of outside the box

thinking where people would get paid for performance—and I think

that is obviously what the private sector does and you could get

fired if you do not perform then that might be something very interesting. Or is it going to be pretty much the same—I do not know

how that works.

Chairman GORDON. Well, first let me ask counsel, here. How

many—how large a staff would be there? What would be your expectation?

The COUNSEL. Well, depending on the size of the budget, of

course, it is not stated, but there could be anywhere—it is really

guessing right now—50 people or so.

Chairman GORDON. So——

The COUNSEL. I mean, if they had a very large budget it would

of course be more.

Chairman GORDON. I think if you have 50 or even 100 people

counting, you know, clerical folks there, they are going to be under

a spotlight. They cannot hide. And this is important business. And

this is not a place for folks to go retire. And I think that is the good

thing about starting it up new. You know, you are not bringing

them in on seniority basis. You are bringing in the best and the

brightest to get a job done. I yield back. I guess-and the final thing

is—again, I cannot give guarantees to anything. We can just take

our best shot. But we can look at models that have worked that

seems reasonable. And I think you and I should have a joint hearing on oversight on anyone who is not doing their job there. And

I would welcome to join you in that.

Chairman LAMPSON. You know, as I understand that, there is

going to be basically temporary people rotated in and out three to

five years. So there should not be a problem.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. You know, it would be interesting. I understand where the Chairman is going. It might be interesting to look

at that performance criteria and sunsets—that if you do not meet

a certain performance criteria, and I do not know what those would

be obviously, that the department goes away.

Chairman GORDON. If the gentleman would yield. It is somewhat

counter-intuitive to what we are trying to do. We—I mean, I do

not—this is a bad way to say it. We expect some people to fail. I

mean, the Internet was successful in DARPA. The technology was

successful. How many were not successful? You know, this is an

area that we want people not to be afraid to fail. And so, you know,

failure is not your idea did not work out but you did not hit your

best lick in trying it. So I think you have to be careful. Sometimes,

quite frankly, when you talk in the scientific community they talk

about old DARPA and new DARPA. New DARPA has gotten to be

more of a less—it is more risk averse because they do not want to

have those failures, where old DARPA was looking—you know,

they were swinging for the fences. And that is what we want these

folks to do. I yield back.

Chairman LAMPSON. The Chair recognizes Mr. Bartlett.

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much. Actually, in basic research

and leading edge engineering there are no failures. You pursue

something that you think may bear fruit and if it does not bear

93

fruit you know it does not and that is not a failure. You look at

science very differently than you do the business world. Everything

you do in science is successful. You have a hypothesis. You are testing a hypothesis and you either have reason to accept it or not to

accept the hypothesis. So it is a learning experience. If we are patterned after—if ARPA–E is patterned after DARPA, there is no bureaucracy. And they intentionally bring fresh blood in and they

stay only a relative few years and they cycle through. So this is not

going to be a bureaucracy. I would just like to return to the question that Ms. Biggert referred to, and that is lines eight, nine and

10 on page four, where we enumerate the entities to which we will

give these contracts. And there is a danger when you have a list

like this that it will tend to limit to whom you give contracts. And

every one of these is a bureaucracy of some sort or another. I will

shortly have my 81st birthday. And I have worked on a lot of different jobs and I will tell you that bureaucracies, wherever they

are, are stifling. Whether it is universities or businesses—I worked

for IBM. I worked for the really big guys. And we have no—we apparently here have excluded that entrepreneur out there—that

small business man who may be a company of one who has a really

great idea. Are we not going to give him a chance?

Chairman GORDON. If the gentleman would yield. I am of the

opinion that there is a garage scientist somewhere that probably,

you know, has—you know, the best ideas come out of the garage.

Mr. BARTLETT. Right.

Chairman GORDON. There is somebody that is thinking outside

the box. So clearly these project managers would have the option

to go, you know, anywhere and everywhere.

Mr. BARTLETT. But we should yet put wording in here that they

would interpret precluded them from doing that, right?

Chairman GORDON. Correct. And again, I think that we need to

work over these next two weeks, meeting your concerns and Ms.

Biggert’s concern. And maybe less is better than more but we need

to get this language correct and we will.

Mr. BARTLETT. And I am big fan of this. If we had leadership in

our country on energy starting from the White House down to the

Department of Energy we might not need this. But the sad truth

is that we do not have adequate—we do not have leadership adequate to the challenge out there. This may not work. But nothing

we are doing now works. And so, you know, let us try this. This

has a big chance of working. DARPA has been enormously successful. And there is no entity in our government that had such leverage as DARPA has. And let us hope that ARPA–E can be—if it is

half as successful as DARPA, it is going to be a big success. Thank

you very much and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing us this.

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you. Anyone else? I might mention

that the word ‘‘companies’’ certainly would not be limited to one or

two people. And access hopefully is adequately responded to in this.

Anyone else seek recognition? If not, then I ask unanimous consent

that the bill is considered as read and open to amendment at any

point and that Members proceed with the amendments in order of

the roster. Without objection, it is so ordered.

94

First amendment on the roster is a managers amendment offered

by myself and Ms. Giffords. Now the Clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 364 offered by Mr. Lampson of

Texas, Ms. Giffords of Arizona, and Mr. Bartlett of Maryland.

Chairman LAMPSON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with

the reading. Without objection, it is so ordered. And I recognize myself for five minutes to explain the amendment.

Following on the witness testimony at the Subcommittee hearing

as well as feedback from several outside groups with interest in the

bill, this managers amendment makes the following changes.

ARPA–E’s mission now includes reducing greenhouse gases, improving energy efficiency, ensuring the Nation’s economic competitiveness in the field of emerging energy technologies as well as decreasing reliance on foreign energy; clarifies that ARPA–E should

conduct research through hybrid teams of participants from private

industry and government and university researchers and may include all stages of innovation from directed basic research to late

stage commercial scale type demonstrations.

Furthermore, the amendment ensures an innovative culture at

ARPA–E by translating some of the critical organizational elements

that made DARPA successful, such as autonomy within DOE, a

hierarchical reporting structure, the ability to start up and terminate programs quickly, hiring of talented program managers for

relatively short terms, minimal bureaucracy and overhead costs,

utilizing existing DOE resources and ensuring current activities

are not duplicated.

Making customers within the Federal Government to aid limits

the amount of funds that might be spent internally within DOE

and on expensive late stage demonstrations. More importantly, the

amendment makes what many of us consider to be a realistic commitment to increased funding for energy research and development.

Energy research and development is not cheap but we have been

acting like it is. We simply have to fund ARPA–E at a level commensurate with the scale and complexity of the challenge.

Is there further discussion? I would like to—I would at this time

ask Mr. Bartlett if he has any comments.

Mr. BARTLETT. Well, I concur with the managers amendment. It

has improved what was a good bill. I am happy to support it.

Thank you very much.

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Bartlett. And I would recognize Ms. Giffords. Any comments? Do you want to be recognized?

Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Chairman LAMPSON. You are recognized for five minutes.

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you. I will speak quickly. My nickname is

Gabby for a reason. Let me just say that I thought that the ARPA–

E hearing that we had a couple weeks ago and unfortunately was

at a time when most Members were not here was one of the most

interesting hearings that I have ever been able to partake in here

at Congress. We had a chance to hear from Dr. William Bonvillian

who took the DARPA concept and incorporated it into the Homeland Security bill. We had Dr. John—or excuse me, Mr. John

Denniston who is a venture capitalist; Dr. Steven Forrest who

95

talked about the university’s effort for a DARPA-like funding

project for energy; and Dr. Van Atta.

Three areas that were repeated over and over in terms of what

we need to do as a nation: energy independence, competitiveness—

that Americans are competitive, and looking at global warming. So

when I—when we heard about what ARPA–E could accomplish—

this breakthrough technology. We are not talking about making

coal cleaner or nuclear safer. We are talking about those innovative

cutting-edge types of technology. And this bill really pulls it all together, Mr. Chairman. So with that I am pleased to co-sponsor this

amendment and I ask my colleagues for support.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Giffords follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE GABRIELLE GIFFORDS

I move to strike the last word.

I am very pleased to co-sponsor this amendment with Chairman Lampson, and

I am proud to support this important legislation.

Two weeks ago, we hosted an excellent panel of witnesses who provided us with

a number of suggestions for improving H.R. 364. Our amendment incorporates a

number of these suggestions and clarifies the structure envisioned for this new organization within the Department of Energy (DOE).

Our witnesses all supported the establishment of ARPA–E as a new organization

with limited administration and emphasized the important role of program managers in fostering a creative, dynamic environment. The witnesses also emphasized

the need for ARPA–E to engage in energy research at all stages of technology development and to search for better processes as well as better products. Our amendment provides direction to project managers consistent with this advice.

The witnesses all supported funding levels for ARPA–E above those established

in the original bill. The authorization levels are raised to reflect their recommendations.

ARPA–E is intended to jump-start the transformation of breakthroughs in basic

energy research into new fuels, processes and energy technologies that will make

us more energy efficient, less dependent upon foreign sources of energy, and that

will be less harmful to the environment.

I believe that energy independence is the Apollo mission of our generation, and

ARPA–E will help us achieve this goal.

DOE has done and will continue to do good research through its existing R&D

programs. But DOE has not been very successful in the important task of moving

its research from the laboratory bench to the marketplace.

The establishment of an organization like ARPA–E within DOE can influence the

culture of DOE in a positive way. It can provide a path for more of the basic energy

research at DOE to be applied in new ways. We must be willing to experiment with

different models of technology development especially when we know from experience that we are not seeing the pace of technological advance that we want and

need under the current model for energy R&D.

We face a significant challenge in transforming the pattern of energy use that we

have followed in past decades. We must make a significant investment in energy

R&D if we are going to meet this challenge. The investments we make must support

a wide range of ideas, foster creative thinking, and support the development and

demonstration of new technologies in partnerships with the industry.

H.R. 364 will get us started in this effort and provide us with the future energy

technologies that we need to support a vibrant economy and the quality of life that

we enjoy today.

I urge my colleagues to support our amendment and to support H.R. 364.

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you very much. I always thought

that Gabby meant that you talked a lot, not just fast. Who else

seeks recognition? Ms. Biggert.

Ms. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the

last word.

Chairman LAMPSON. You are recognized for five minutes.

Ms. BIGGERT. In the spirit of full disclosure I will admit that I

do not support this bill in its current form. While I believe there

96

are a number of provisions in the managers amendment that make

it less objectionable, there are a number of provisions that make

it more objectionable. First, the managers amendment I think has

a lot of contradictions. The managers amendment clarifies that

ARPA–E should support all stages of technology development including research development, demonstration and commercialization and should not have authority over any other program at

DOE.

At the same time, I think the managers amendment specifies

that ARPA–E should not duplicate the efforts of any other agency

or program at DOE. As a result, the managers amendment seemingly directs ARPA–E to do everything but not anything that has

already been done at DOE. I got the impression from the Subcommittee hearing on ARPA–E two weeks ago that ARPA–E is

supposed to fill a niche and bridge the gap between basic and applied research efforts and I do not see how the bill or this amendment accomplishes that or does what we really want it to.

And by further broadening the responsibilities of the director, we

could be creating tremendous management challenges for program

managers both within and outside of ARPA–E as well as for the

Secretary of Energy.

Secondly, I have real concerns that this managers amendment al- most doubles the authorized funding for ARPA–E from $3.3 billion

to $6.4 billion for a brand new untested agency. And DARPA, despite being in one form or another since 1958, has a fiscal year

2007 budget of only $3 billion, yet the managers amendment would

make ARPA–E in only its second year of existence one-third the

size of DARPA and one-forth the size of the Office of Science.

The managers amendment ignores I think the advice of one of

the witnesses at the Subcommittee hearing two weeks ago who

warned that if ARPA–E is stood up and requires funding comparable to DARPA’s, however it would be operated at a far larger

scale and its market interventions would affect competitive outcomes and this could be a problem. That was Mr. Bonvillian.

I just do not see how an agency could wisely spend $1 billion in

its second year of existence. But you might find some project that

will change the world. And I think currently if the DOE had an

extra $1 billion in new money they should be spending it on energy

research, especially energy efficiency, renewable energy, energy

conservation and nuclear energy research.

And finally, I believe that one of the problems is that there is no

way to address the relationship between this ARPA–E and the existing DOE National Laboratories. And again, we talked about the

definition a little bit, but the managers amendment specifically

says that no more than half the funds may be used for late stage

demonstrations. No more than eight percent may go directly to federal funded research and development centers. And I think even

though they might take the—if they could take the lead—if they

could, only eight percent can go to them. So—and in testimony, one

witness stated that to create an effective ARPA–E, one of the elements that Congress would need to address is DOE’s existing lab

structure. And he said, and I quote, ‘‘ARPA–E will need to contend

with a research infrastructure in the national laboratories that had

no such precedent in DOD. The service R&D structure lacked the

97

scale and scope of the current energy labs and also the support on

Capitol Hill that these labs have had.’’ But instead of addressing

these issues, I think the managers amendment limits the amount

of funds that can go to the federal research and development. And

more than that, I think that the managers amendment also limits

how much could be spent on the demonstration activities, that this

bill is supposed to create an agile organization as the Gathering

Storm report recommends. I am not clear why we are already putting limits on how much can be spent on something like demonstration projects. For all we know, given all the years of energy

research Congress has funded, there may be a backlog of technologies that need demonstrating at this point, so—and I am glad

that the Chairman has said that, you know, to take a couple weeks

to really look at this and I would love to discuss it more. So with

that I would yield back the balance of my time.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Biggert follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JUDY BIGGERT

In the spirit of full disclosure, I will admit that I do not support this bill in its

current form. And while I believe there are a number of provisions in the manager’s

amendment that make it less objectionable, there are a number of provisions that

make it more objectionable.

First, the manager’s amendment seems to be full of contradictions.

The manager’s amendment clarifies that ARPA–E should support all stages of

technology development—including research, development, demonstration, and commercialization—and should not have authority over any other program at DOE.

At the same time, the manager’s amendment specifies that ARPA–E should not

duplicate the efforts of any other agency or program at DOE.

As a result, the manager’s amendment seemingly directs ARPA–E to do everything, but not anything that’s already being done at DOE.

I got the impression from the Subcommittee hearing on ARPA–E two weeks ago

that ARPA–E is supposed to fill a niche, and ‘‘bridge the gap’’ between basic and

applied research efforts. I don’t see how the bill, or this amendment, accomplishes

that.

And by further broadening the responsibilities of the director, we could be creating tremendous management challenges for program managers both within and

outside of ARPA–E as well as for the Secretary of Energy.

Secondly, I have real concerns that this manager’s amendment almost doubles the

authorized funding for ARPA–E from $3.3 billion to $6.4 billion for a brand new,

untested agency.

DARPA, despite existing in one form or another since 1958, has an FY07 budget

of only around $3 billion. Yet, the manager’s amendment would make ARPA–E—

in only its second year of existence—one-third the size of DARPA, and one-fourth

the size of the DOE Office of Science.

This manager’s amendment ignores the advice of one of the witnesses at the Subcommittee hearing on ARPA–E two weeks ago who warned that:

‘‘If an ARPA–E, is stood up and acquires funding comparable to DARPA’s, however, it would be operating at a far larger scale and its market interventions

could affect competitive outcomes. This could be a problem.’’ (Mr. William

Bonvillian)

I just don’t see how any agency could wisely spend $1 billion in its second year

of existence, especially an agency still trying to figure out how best to operate within a complex organization like the DOE.

Nor can I even imagine where that money would come from. Don’t we think that

if the DOE currently had an extra $1 billion in new money today they’d be spending

it on energy research, especially energy efficiency, renewable energy, energy conservation, and nuclear energy research?

Finally, of this bill’s many flaws, I believe that one of its greatest is that it in

no way addresses the relationship between this new ARPA–E and the existing DOE

national laboratories.

98

Again, in testimony before this subcommittee, one witness stated that to create

an effective ARPA–E, one of the elements that Congress would need to address is

DOE’s existing lab structure. He said:

‘‘ARPA–E will need to contend with a research infrastructure in the National

Laboratories, that had no such precedent in DOD. The Service R&D structure

lacked the scale and scope of the current ‘‘energy labs’’ and also the support on

Capitol Hill that these labs have.’’ (Dr. Richard Van Atta)

But instead of addressing these issues, the manager’s amendment arbitrarily limits the amount of funds that can go to federal funded research and development centers, of which the DOE labs are a rather small subset.

But more than that, the manager’s amendment also limits how much could be

spent on demonstration activities. If this bill is supposed to create an ‘‘agile’’ organization as the Gathering Storm report recommends, I’m not clear why we’re already

putting limits on how much it can spend on something like demonstration projects.

For all we know, given all the years of energy research Congress has funded, there

may be a backlog of technologies that need demonstrating at this point.

For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose the manager’s amendment,

and I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman LAMPSON. I thank the gentlelady. Who else seeks recognition? Ranking Member Mr. Inglis.

Mr. INGLIS. Hello, Mr. Chairman. Do you think we have time?

Chairman LAMPSON. We are getting close, but we can—we have

got a few more minutes if we can—if there is not too much more

that——

Mr. INGLIS. Yeah.

Chairman LAMPSON.—is taken.

Mr. INGLIS. Several questions and it would be great if Chairman

Gordon would maybe respond to some of these perhaps as I want

to make sure I understand the organizational structure of ARPA–

E.

Chairman GORDON. Let me make a suggestion, here. This is an

important bill. I do not want to rush you through it. And so if you

are going to have several questions, maybe we should just come

back later because——

Mr. INGLIS. Okay.

Chairman GORDON.—you deserve——

Mr. INGLIS. That sounds good.

Chairman GORDON.—to have a full airing.

Mr. INGLIS. Let us do it.

Chairman GORDON. Okay.

Chairman LAMPSON. Okay. And if that is the case, pursuant to

Rule 1J, the Subcommittee will be in recess until immediately following the series of votes on the Floor and ask that everyone please

come back quickly thereafter. We are in recess.

[Recess.]

Chairman LAMPSON. Okay. We will reconvene our meeting.

Thanks for everyone’s patience while we had so many votes. We

left while still having discussion on the first amendment. And I believe that Mr. Inglis was controlling the time and so you are recognized for five minutes.

Mr. INGLIS. I realize that people want to move along quickly, so

I will—these questions may be just things that Chairman Gordon

may want to respond to now or it may be that you want to respond

as we move from here to Full Committee markup, but—I am interested in making sure that what—that we have—I have mentioned

earlier, learning what we learn from NSF. But maybe the better

99

comparison in talking with Mr. Lipinski on the floor here recently

is that DARPA may be actually the better comparison as to whether we have learned—my question is whether we have learned everything we need to learn from DARPA and can apply it to this bill

so that whatever structures were set up for DARPA we have mimicked them in this.

And so for example, within—that is the broad question. Specific

questions under that would be what is the organizational structure

that is anticipated for ARPA–E. Where are they going to get the

money? How is it going to be appropriated? What Subcommittee

appropriations will that come through? Or will it come through the

DOE and therefore perhaps DOE will take the money and put it

somewhere else? Or how is it preserved for ARPA–E? And then—

so those are just the questions about—I think they fall under the

heading of have we learned everything we could learn from DARPA

and applied it to ARPA–E and built it in to the authorizing language.

Particularly I have heard—I am asking a bunch of questions

here, but I have also heard in the break for those votes, my capable

staff found out that NSF maybe is not so much statutory setup as

it is the culture and expectation that has come around NSF as to

how it will be preserved from earmarking and that sort of thing.

So my question with the ARPA–E is, in a different world now

where earmarking is so common, do we need to build protection

into this authorizing language? So you can pick up any of those

questions, Mr. Gordon. And also the last one I throw out is how

do we get from three billion to six billion? Any one of those three

broad questions.

Chairman GORDON. Those are all good questions. Let me start

with our review of DARPA. There has been an exhaustive effort to

talk with folks in DARPA, folks that have—you know, that are currently there, have been there. We have had hearings with the

DARPA representatives. And it was an effort to incorporate that.

I will also say that, as I said earlier, there are some that think of

old DARPA and new DARPA. The old DARPA took risks. The new

DARPA does not take that many risks now. So we tried to model

it more on the old DARPA. So I think there has been a good conversation with them.

In concerning the appropriation amount, the authorizing amount,

that is the amount that was recommended by the Rising Above the

Gathering Storm report. And again, I put that in context, we have

had an 85 percent reduction in Energy R&D since the ’80s.

Are there other more specific questions or do you want to repeat

anything specifically that I did not cover there that you would like?

Mr. INGLIS. How do you see us? Do you think we need to build

protections into the authorizing language to keep it from morphing

into a middling Department of Energy program where things are

earmarked away and where the budget gets spent and——

Chairman GORDON. You know, if the gentleman would yield. As

I said earlier, I am adamantly opposed to that. As a practical matter, ARPA–E really is only going to be dealing with—and this is

something we learned from DARPA. They said you should limit the

number of projects to eight to 10. So if you are only going to have

eight or 10 projects, you know, you cannot—to earmark something

100

is like 10 percent or more of that. So I welcome any thoughts on

being more specific as to why that, you know, why that would be

bad. So if you have some ways to do it—I do not think it is going

to happen. I think that it would be an outrage to try to do something like that because there would be such an enormous figure.

Mr. INGLIS. My time is nearly up and I want to make sure to

give others here the opportunity to ask questions. But I look forward to working with you as we move from this markup to the Full

Committee and maybe address some of these things in more detail

there.

Chairman GORDON. Yeah. You know, as a practical matter, this

bill has been out for a long time. But I understand we are all busy

and a lot of times we do not start focusing until—you know, like

homework is due. And so homework is due now and now that everybody is focusing we will intensely go through this in the next

two weeks and if it takes longer, we will do, you know, whatever

we need to do.

Mr. INGLIS. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you very much. Who seeks recognition? Ms. Biggert, you are recognized for five minutes.

Ms. BIGGERT. Thank you. I would go back to the DARPA and

also the Homeland Security. It seems to me that the difference between DARPA and ARPA–E is that DARPA was established to be

the research arm of the Department of Defense. And we do not, in

ARPA–E, we already have the research. And also, if you could just

answer—obviously the Homeland Security ARPA did not work,

dealing with private—if you could comment on the difference between ARPA–E and the Homeland Security.

Chairman GORDON. Let me first go back to your first question

with the Defense Department. The Defense Department had—they

were already doing research. ARPA–E was set up specifically for

advanced research. So it was not a new—I mean, it was not that

Defense had not done any research. It was set up for advanced research for many of the same reasons that we are talking about

today in terms of problems that could occur within the bureaucracy

of the Department of Energy.

In terms of the Homeland Security, I do not know that there are

problems there. And there may be. And I cannot address that because I am just not aware. Is counsel or anyone else aware of that?

Ms. BIGGERT. The witnesses spoke on—one of the witnesses, Mr.

Bonvillian, spoke on the problems at HS–ARPA and that it was

largely an issue of execution of the authorization language, that

one of the things was that it could not build in the culture like we

are talking about here.

I yield back.

Chairman LAMPSON. Who seeks recognition? If there is no further discussion on this amendment then the vote will occur on the

amendment. And I would ask that all in favor say aye. Those 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 gentlewoman from Illinois, Ms. Biggert. Are you ready to proceed with

your amendment?

101

Ms. BIGGERT. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the

desk.

Chairman LAMPSON. The Clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 364

offered by Mrs. Biggert of Illinois.

Chairman LAMPSON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with

the reading and without objection it is so ordered. I recognize Ms.

Biggert for five minutes to explain the amendment.

Ms. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It should come as no

surprise to everyone on this subcommittee that I have long been

skeptical about the National Academy’s proposal to create an Advanced Research Project Agency at DOE, or ARPA–E. And I first

raised questions about this proposal at a Science Committee hearing that we had in the 109th Congress in March of 2006. And despite participating in a second hearing just two weeks ago, I think

that many of the questions have not been answered. It still is not

clear what problems we are trying to solve with the creation of

ARPA–E or what its function, role, or structure should be. So is it

a lack of private sector involvement in long-term or basic research?

And if so, how do we solve the problem by creating a brand new

agency to distribute scarce federal resources to companies to conduct research that they would not otherwise conduct.

Correct me if I am wrong, but does not the academy’s version of

ARPA–E put the Federal Government in the position of picking

what companies are the winners. It is a lack of federal funding for

high risk transformational research? And if so, how would you

characterize DOE’s current FreedomCAR and hydrogen initiatives,

for example. How about the President’s global nuclear energy partnership, FutureGen, or U.S. participation in either. I do not know

about my colleagues, but I would put these in the category of high

risk transformational research.

Is it a failure of the Department of Energy to effectively transfer

new energy technologies from the laboratory to the market? And if

so, would not it make more sense to closely examine the legal and

policy obstacles to the transfer of technology from our universities,

national labs, and other research institutions? And how should

ARPA be structured to take full advantage of the existing energy

R&D infrastructure of our national labs?

Where exactly are we going to get the money for ARPA–E with

growing demands on our limited federal resources? Is there really

new money available for this agency? Really, no. The money will

come from other basic and applied DOE research programs, I am

afraid.

So some of these questions are included in this amendment that

I am offering today. Instead of creating a new agency, a new bureaucracy at the DOE based on what I think is a vague recommendation by the National Academies. My amendment would

direct the NSA to conduct a detailed study and clarify their recommendation to establish an ARPA–E and to answer a number of

remaining questions. And I think this is a reasonable and responsible course of action on the only Gathering Storm recommendation

in which there was not consensus.

And on the National Academy’s panel—and the panel said—

sought no outside advice in crafting. At the hearing on ARPA–E

102

held by this subcommittee two weeks ago, I specifically asked the

witnesses if they thought the NAS recommendation was clear as to

the extent of the function, role and structure of ARPA–E or if they

believed that the recommendation left a lot of questions unanswered. And I think the panel was unanimous that the NAS recommendation was really just an idea that left a lot of questions unanswered.

One of the witnesses, John Denniston, said I do not think that

the Gathering Storm report provided implementation details. I

view it as an idea. So they do not talk specifically about what technologies, fossil, nuclear, renewable—they do not talk about the

stage of research. Should it be translational? Is it basic? Is it applied? And they do not talk about the organizational details, much

of which you have heard today.

And when I asked the same witnesses if it would be worthwhile

for NAS to answer some of those unanswered questions, come to

a consensus and flesh out the details of whether the ARPA–E recommendation before Congress went so far as to create another federal agency, they said no. So while they all agreed that the recommendation was vague, they all thought we should go ahead and

implement it anyway.

While those witnesses certainly are entitled to their opinion, we

all have a responsibility to ensure that the Federal Government is

a good steward of the taxpayers’ dollars. And I am not willing to

spend billions of dollars to create a whole new agency based on a

vague recommendation. I know, Mr. Chairman, that you have

spent a lot more time on this in moving it forward. But I have always taken my responsibility for overseeing the research and development programs at the DOE very seriously. And I cannot think

really of anything more important to our national security, our

economy, and our standard of living than energy. And I know that

everyone here is generally interested in finding solutions to our nation’s energy challenges. And I think we need to find the right solution, not just any solution.

And if ARPA–E is the right solution, I will support it. But to get

to the right solution, I think we have the obligation to ask the

tough questions. And that is the purpose of my amendment today.

So I would urge my colleagues to support it and yield back the balance of my time.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Biggert follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JUDY BIGGERT

It should come as no surprise to anyone on this subcommittee that I have long

been skeptical about the National Academies’ (NAS) proposal to create an Advanced

Research Projects Agency at the Department of Energy (DOE), or ARPA–E. I first

raised questions about this proposal at a Science Committee hearing during the

109th Congress in March of 2006.

Despite participating in a second hearing on this topic just two weeks ago, many

of my questions still have not been answered.

It still isn’t clear what problems we are trying to solve with the creation of an

ARPA–E, nor what its function, role or structure should be.

Is it a lack of private sector investment in long-term or basic research? If so, how

do we solve the problem by creating a brand new agency to distribute scarce federal

resources to companies to conduct research they wouldn’t otherwise conduct? Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the Academies’ version of ARPA–E put the Federal

Government in the position of picking what companies are winners?

103

Is it a lack of federal funding for high-risk, transformational research? If so, how

would you characterize DOE’s current FreedomCAR and Hydrogen Initiatives? How

about the President’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, FutureGen, or U.S. participation in ITER, the international fusion experiment? I don’t know about my colleagues, but I would put these in the category of high-risk, transformational research.

Is it a failure by the Department of Energy to effectively transfer new energy

technologies from the laboratory to the market? If so, wouldn’t it make more sense

to closely examine the legal and policy obstacles to the transfer of technology from

our universities, national laboratories, and other research institutions?

And how should ARPA–E be structured to take full advantage of the existing energy R&D infrastructure at our national labs? Where exactly are we going to get

the money for ARPA–E? With growing demands on our limited federal resources,

is there really ‘‘new money’’ available for this agency? Realistically, no; the money

will come from other basic and applied DOE research programs.

Some of these questions are included in this amendment I am offering today. Instead of creating a new agency—a new bureaucracy—at the DOE based on a vague

recommendation by the National Academies, my amendment would direct the NAS

to conduct a detailed study of and clarify their recommendation to establish an

ARPA–E, and to answer a number of remaining questions.

I think this is a reasonable and responsible course of action on the only Gathering

Storm recommendation on which there was not consensus, and on which the National Academies’ panel sought no outside advice in crafting.

At the hearing on ARPA–E held by this subcommittee two weeks ago, I specifically asked the witnesses if they thought the NAS recommendation was clear as to

the exact function, role, and structure of ARPA–E, or if they believed the recommendation left a lot of questions unanswered. The panel was unanimous that the

NAS recommendation was really just an ‘‘idea’’ that left a lot of questions unanswered.

One of the witnesses, John Denniston, a partner with the firm Kleiner, Perkins,

Caufield & Byers, said, ‘‘I don’t think that the Gathering Storm report provided implementation details. I view it as an idea. So, they don’t talk specifically about

which technologies, fossil, nuclear, renewable. They don’t talk about stage of research, should it be translational, is it basic, is it applied? They don’t talk about

the organizational details, much of which you have heard today.’’

When I asked the same witnesses if it would be worthwhile for the NAS to answer

some these unanswered questions, come to a consensus, and flesh out the details

of their ARPA–E recommendation before Congress went so far as to create another

federal agency, they said no.

So while they all agreed the recommendation was vague, they all thought we

should go ahead and implement it anyway.

While those witnesses certainly are entitled to their opinion, we all have a responsibility to ensure that the Federal Government is a good steward of the taxpayer’s

dollars. And I’m not willing to spend billions of dollars to create a whole new agency

based on a vague recommendation.

As past Chairman of this subcommittee, I always took my responsibility for overseeing the research and development programs at the DOE very seriously. I can’t

think of anything more important to our national security, our economy, and our

standard of living than energy. And I know everyone here is genuinely interested

in finding solutions to our nation’s energy challenges.

But we need to find the ‘‘right’’ solutions, not just any solution. If ARPA–E is the

right solution, I will support it. But to get to the ‘‘right’’ solution, we have an obligation to ask tough questions. That’s the purpose of my amendment today. I urge my

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

Chairman LAMPSON. I thank the gentlelady. Is there——

Chairman GORDON. Strike the last word.

Chairman LAMPSON. The Chairman of the Committee is recognized. Mr. Gordon.

Chairman GORDON. You cover a lot of territory there, Ms.

Biggert. Let me try to address some of these. First of all, you said

that this was not a consensus recommendation of the Rising Above

the Gathering Storm. It was consensus. It was not unanimous. The

only member of the community that voted against it was the Chairman of the Board of Exxon.

104

You quoted Mr. Denniston as being somehow negative toward it.

You asked him some questions in the—when there was a Subcommittee hearing. Let me repeat back to you his answer. And Mr.

Denniston said and this is in response to you, ‘‘Can I take a shot

at that, Congresswoman? First is on the question of the study. I

will not do—I would not do a study. I think this subcommittee has

the facts and the expertise to be able to decide those details. A

study delays implementation, which I would be very much opposed

to. And let me also say that it is also not necessary to have this

amendment because it is already the law.’’

The Energy Policy Act of 2005, Section 1821, DOE was required

to have a similar study done by the National Academy of Public

Administration and submit it to Congress by January of this year.

DOE never initiated the report. So it is pretty clear that if you are

against this developing ARPA–E then you should vote for this

amendment because it, you know—somebody might even make a

commentary that DOE couldn’t even do what they are required to

do. And this may be a reason why we want to set up something

separately. But if you want the study all you have to do is ask

DOE to do what they were required to do and have not done. I

yield back.

Ms. BIGGERT. If the gentleman will yield.

Chairman GORDON. Oh, certainly.

Ms. BIGGERT. I think I did make it clear that they all recommended that we go ahead and not wait for any study. I tried to

briefly say that.

Chairman GORDON. Well, I apologize if I——

Ms. BIGGERT. No, that is okay.

Chairman GORDON.—mischaracterized.

Ms. BIGGERT. That is all right. I think that one of the problems

with the implementation is that I think it is going to be difficult

when we do not have the buy-in of the Department of Energy.

Maybe to ask them for doing a study. But I would agree with you

that I have also asked them for studies such as this. Systems analysis for the GNEP. And they refused that. They were against the

bill and a study like that. So, I think there are problems.

I am not saying that I agree with everything that the Department of Energy has done. But I just wonder if—again, I think it

is the question of the whole agency. But I think that we can work

it out at some point. Yield back.

Chairman GORDON. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman?

Chairman LAMPSON. Mr. Bartlett.

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much. You know, if we were sitting here five or 10 years ago, I could enthusiastically support this

proposal. But very frankly, we have run out of time. The time for

this was five or 10 years ago. As a matter of fact, the time for this

was 27 years ago.

In 1956, M. King Hubbard predicted the United States would

reach its maximum oil production in 1970. That happened right on

schedule. By 1980, we knew darn well that M. King Hubbard was

right about the United States. And in spite of drilling more oil

wells than all the rest of the world put together, in spite of finding

oil in Alaska, in spite of drilling four times as many wells in the

105

Gulf of Mexico as all the wells in Saudi Arabia, we still are only

producing half as much oil as we did in 1970.

And we knew darn well by 1980 that M. King Hubbard was

right, which is why I say we should have been doing this 27 years

ago. Certainly the United States is a microcosm of the world. He

predicted that the world would be peaking in oil production about

now. Have you seen the latest Chevron ad? They agree that we

probably reached peak production. The time for this study is gone.

We have now run out of time. We have now run out of energy. If

we had any extra surplus energy to invest in alternatives, oil

wouldn’t be 60-couple dollars a barrel. We needed to be doing this

27 years ago. We cannot roll back the hands of time, so we need

to move.

I would hope that the National Science Foundation and National

Academy of Sciences would work with us in developing this new

entity so that it will be as effective as it can be. You know, time

is really more than of the essence here. I went over during the holidays to China. They start their discussion of energy by talking

about post-oil. Wow. I wish our guys got it here.

They have a five-point program which ought to be our five-point

program. Conservation first. Diversify. Get as much of it as you can

at home. Be kind to the environment. Surprise that they would say

that. They know that they are huge polluters and they are saying

please help us. We have 1,300,000,000 people. They have got to be

fed and clothed. And the fifth one was international cooperation.

It is high time that we get on with this. It may not work. But,

you know, God knows what we are doing now sure as heck is not

working. Year by year goes by. The price of oil goes up more and

more. And I had a map that I wish I kept here to show you—the

world according to oil. And it shows what the countries of the world

would look like if their size was relative to the amount of oil that

they have. We are way over insignificant in a corner. And Saudi

Arabia, of course, just dominates the globe. And the Middle East

and Northern Africa dominates the globe.

You know, it is high time we get on with this. And the reason

for this—the reason for this—and the reason the marketplace will

not take care of this and the reason that the DOD could not count

on the marketplace to take care of the innovations they needed,

which was why they set up DARPA—is because the market signals

will not be early enough or strong enough.

I know I have many colleagues on my side of the yard that worship the market. They think the market is omniscient and omnipotent. It knows all and is all-powerful. And if there were infinite resources, I could trust the market. The problem is there are not infinite resources here and our USGS and our energy information

agency do not understand that. They project that the future will be

like the past. And in the past we have always had as much gas and

oil as we wanted. And they are saying that our two percent increase in growth is going to continue. It is, and it will be accelerated with China and India and the developing world coming on

board. And they say that there will be enough gas and oil there to

meet those demands.

And clearly La Horara says that this is absolutely implausible to

believe that we are going to find as much more oil as all the oil

106

that now exists in the world. And that is what they are telling us

will happen. Mr. Chairman and the Chairman of the Full Committee, thank you very much for bringing this before us. This is

more than timely. It would have been timely 17 years ago. It is the

kind of thing we should have been doing 27 years ago and shame

on us if we do not do it now.

Ms. BIGGERT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BARTLETT. Yes. I would be happy to yield.

Ms. BIGGERT. Okay. Thank you. I know that this is something

that you really believe in and I do too. I wish that we had started

much earlier. But I do not want to just leave it to imply that there

is not any energy R&D underway currently. And the Department

of Energy is spending billions on energy R&D now. I think that—

and this investment I think is paying off.

For instance, the National Academy of Science has found that for

every dollar that Congress invested in energy efficiency R&D between 1978 and 2000, that more than four dollars of economic benefit was realized. So I think that we—I do not know that this will

delay it. I think that we have to move as fast as we can, too. And

I certainly do not want to let one minute go by that we do not continue in the research and development. And with that I would yield

back.

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you both very much. Who seeks recognition? Any further discussion? Being none, the vote will now

occur on the amendment. All in favor say aye. Those opposed say

no.

The nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Are there

any other amendments? Any other amendments? Hearing none, the

vote is on the bill, H.R. 364, To provide for the establishment of the

Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy 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 will recognize the Vice Chairman

of our Subcommittee for a motion.

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that the Subcommittee favorably report House Resolution 364’s amendment as

amended to the Full Committee. Furthermore, I move that staff be

instructed to prepare the Subcommittee legislative report and

make necessary technical and conforming changes to the bill as

amended in accordance with the recommendation of the Subcommittee.

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

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

aye. Opposed say no. The ayes have it, and the bill is favorably reported. Without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the

table. Subcommittee Members may submit additional or Minority

views on the measure.

I would like to thank the Members for their attendance, everyone

who stayed all the way through this thing. And this concludes our

subcommittee markup. We are adjourned. Thank you.

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

(107)

Appendix:

H.R. 364, SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS, AMENDMENT ROSTER

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF H.R. 364,

TO PROVIDE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE

ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY-ENERGY

Summary

H.R. 364 establishes an Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy within the

U.S. Department of Energy. Modeled after the Department of Defense’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, ARPA–E is a new program charged with the mission of reducing U.S. dependence on oil through the rapid development and commercialization of transformational clean energy technologies. This bill follows on the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences’ report ‘‘Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future.’’

Section-by-Section

Section 1. Findings

The U.S. can meet long-term energy challenges through sustained investment in

energy research programs at DOE augmented by an innovative and aggressive new

energy technology development effort based on the same operating principles that

make DARPA successful.

Section 2. Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy

Establishes the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA–E) within the

Department of Energy. Similar to the Department of Defense’s successful Advanced

Research Projects Agency (DARPA), this new organizational structure will be wellpositioned to support revolutionary and transformational energy research where

risk and pay-offs are high.

The stated goal of ARPA–E is to reduce the dependence of the U.S. on foreign energy sources by 20 percent over the next 10 years. To achieve this ARPA–E should

support targeted high-risk, high pay-off research to accelerate the innovation cycle

for both traditional and alternative energy sources and energy efficiency. ARPA–E

shall be headed by a Director, appointed by the Secretary, who will administer competitive grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts to universities, industry and

consortia which may include federal labs.

Organization of ARPA–E will be very flat and nimble to avoid bureaucratic impediments that stifle innovation today. The Director shall designate program managers who will have flexibility in establishing R&D goals for the program, publicizing goals, issuing solicitations and selecting projects for support as well as monitoring their progress. Projects will be chosen based on factors such as novelty, scientific and technical merit, applicant’s capabilities and other criteria as the Director

determines. ARPA–E will have authority to hire specialized science and engineering

personnel to be program managers. (This is similar to DARPA and HS–ARPA.)

In addition, the Director shall ensure that ARPA–E’s activities are coordinated

with other federal research agencies and that ARPA–E may carry out projects jointly with other agencies.

Section. 3. Energy Independence Acceleration Fund

Establishes the Energy Independence Acceleration Fund administered by the Director of ARPA–E. Funding is authorized from FY 2008 thru 2013 ramping up 25

percent per year from an initial authorization of $300 million to $915 million.

Section 4. Recoupment

If a project is successful the Federal Government can recoup some of its original

investment. The provision allows the Secretary complete flexibility in developing

recoupment agreements, and the ability to waive it entirely if necessary for the commercial viability of a project. All recouped funds will be returned to the Energy

Independence Acceleration Fund.

Section 5. Advisory Committee

The ARPA–E Advisory Committee may seek advice either from an existing DOE

advisory committee or may establish a new advisory committee. If the Director of

ARPA–E requires industry advice, a panel to advise on a specific technology area,

or to hire an outside consultant, this provision provides the appropriate authorities.

Section 6. ARPA–E Evaluation

At the end of five and one-half years, the President’s Committee on Science and

Technology (PCAST) shall evaluate how well ARPA–E has performed in achieving

its goals and mission. The Committee is required to recommend whether ARPA–E

should be continued or terminated as well as lessons learned from its operation.

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

(127)

XXIII: PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP ON H.R. 364, TO PROVIDE

FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY–ENERGY

WEDNESDAY, MAY 23, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,

Washington, DC.

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

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

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.

Chairman GORDON. Good morning everyone. The Committee on

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

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

provide for the establishment of the Advanced Research Projects

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

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

Prize Act of 2007.

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

quick piece of Committee business to attend to. The distinguished

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

Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee without a Ranking Member.

Last week Mr. Hall announced that Representative Feeney would

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

unanimous consent that the Committee on Science and Technology

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

and Aeronautics Subcommittee. Without objection——

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, do you have to be present to be proposed or——

Chairman GORDON. Well, I am considering that no objection

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

ordered. I want to congratulate Mr. Feeney.

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

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

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

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

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

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

128

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

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

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

the Subcommittee hearing and in the markup we had a very

healthy discussion that I believe pointed to the critical need for

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

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

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

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

to addressing those concerns.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gingerich and Hillary Clinton are supporting this concept and so

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

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

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

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

profile of a very important issue, university research and education

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

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

which has a long history with science and technological education,

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

technology experts and green building professionals. This bill helps

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

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

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

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

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

of transformational possibilities that we are hoping to achieve with

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

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

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

forward to moving it through the Committee today.

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

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

[The prepared statement of Chairman Gordon follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BART GORDON

Today the Committee is meeting to markup four bills.

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

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

129

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

the critical need for such an entity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

do so as well.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

energy technology experts and green building professionals.

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

it to the Committee.

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

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

of our energy puzzle.

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

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

through Committee today.

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

of them.

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

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

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

not even be Chairman right now. And I have been talked to by 4/

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

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

and you can thank me later if you would like.

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

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

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

we are going to disagree. And as much as I dislike going against

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ARPA–E based on a vague recommendation that was in the Gathering Storm report. The facts are that DOE currently has the authority to do ARPA-type projects but DOE is woefully under-funded. I am concerned that we could be faced with the problem of havVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:49 Jan 05, 2009 Jkt 037729 PO 00000 Frm 00137 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\110MAR~1\37729\37729.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
130

ing both the Office of Science and ARPA–E underfunded so that

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

the creation of this new agency. Before we go forward with any

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

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

agency within DOE. Before we move toward this legislation, and to

that end, I will be introducing an amendment that, without creating a new bureaucracy, would require the Secretary of Energy to

identify and accelerate advanced research projects at the DOE that

will address our energy needs. I, along with several of my colleagues, have sent a letter to the Secretary urging him to complete

the study as mandated by law so that we all might benefit from

its recommendations.

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

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

committee hearing, technology transfer plays a very integral part

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

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

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

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

goals.

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

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

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

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

and efficiently, health information technology can revolutionize our

health care system but we have to have an educated workforce

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Foundation to help develop the next generation of engineers and

architects to work effectively together to produce buildings that will

incorporate the latest in energy-efficient technologies. I commend

Mr. McCaul for his fine work on this bill.

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

Act, sponsored by Mr. Inglis and Mr. Lipinski. This legislation was

introduced in the last Congress and passed overwhelmingly by the

House of Representatives. This bill directs the Secretary of Energy

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

hydrogen energy technologies. Categories eligible for prizes include

131

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

in the technologies for hydrogen distribution or production. I commend Mr. Inglis and Mr. Lipinski for introducing this legislation

and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

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

three bipartisan pieces of legislation. I look forward to working

with you to advance these bills.

I yield back my time, sir.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RALPH M. HALL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Storm report.

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

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

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

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

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

management practices and the advisability of creating a DARPA-type agency within

DOE before moving forward with legislation. To that end I will be introducing an

amendment that, without creating a new bureaucracy, would require the Secretary

of Energy to identify and accelerate advanced research projects at the DOE that will

address our energy needs. I, along with several of my colleagues, have sent a letter

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

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

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

basic research to widespread commercialization.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

132

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

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

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

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

my colleagues to support it.

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

bills. We have had extensive consultation and by making better

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

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

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

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

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

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mitchell follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE HARRY E. MITCHELL

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

and encourage renewable sources of energy.

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

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

in alternative energy sources.

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

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

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

sources.

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

to working on them.

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman GORDON. We will now consider H.R. 364, To provide

for the establishment of Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy.

I yield myself five minutes to describe the bill.

H.R. 364 addresses the National Academies of Science Rising

Above the Gathering Storm, which recommended establishing an

ARPA–E to shorten the time period for transforming research into

technologies that will make us more energy-efficient, sustain our

economy, achieve energy security and improve our environment.

Energy powers our economy and supports the quality of life we

enjoy in this country. We owe it to our children and grandchildren

133

to tackle our energy supply problems now before we reach a crisis.

By investing in research, development and deployment of new technologies, we can deliver to them an energy-secure future. If you are

satisfied with the status quo and you believe that the current pace

of technology transfer will get us to the energy future we need,

then you would conclude we do not need an ARPA–E. However, if

you are not satisfied with our current progress, if you believe we

need a new model of technology transfer that moves creative basic

science from the laboratory bench to the marketplace, you should

support H.R. 364. We must engage the private sector, the national

labs and the universities in a manner not done today and we need

a strong, cohesive community of researchers, technology developers

intent on transforming our energy economy as we know it.

I want to thank my colleagues on the Committee for working

with me on this bill. Over the past two weeks we have had very

productive discussions that are embodied in several of the amendments we will consider this morning. Mr. Inglis and Mr. Bartlett

have been especially helpful in the effort to craft this legislation

and the bill will be improved this morning as a result of their efforts. Our constituents get the best outcome when we work together to achieve our common goals. So I urge my colleagues to

support H.R. 364 and vote for a brighter, more secure energy future.

And let me read to the Committee just a few of the endorsements. We really haven’t sought endorsements but to give you an

idea of the wide breadth of this, the American Public Power Association, the American Iron and Steel Institute, the American Petroleum Institute, the American Society for Mechanical Engineers, the

American Federation of Scientists, the Edison Electric Institute,

the Gas Technology Institute, the Independent Petroleum Association of America, Information, MIT, the National Association of

Manufacturers, the National Hydrogen Association, the National

Association of Rural Electric Cooperatives, Texas A&M, University

of Michigan, the Climate Policy Center, the National Commission

on Energy Policy, and they continue to come in every day. So this

is widely, widely supported.

So now I recognize Mr. Hall to present any remarks on the bill.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I think I have pretty well expressed

myself in the opening statement in that it creates another agency

within DOE and is way, way, way too expensive.

I yield back.

Chairman GORDON. Does anyone else wish to be recognized? Yes,

Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I am sorry. I haven’t really studied the bill

and I will have to admit that; and I will have to note that I disagree with my Ranking Member respectfully that the idea of just

creating a new bureaucracy. I mean, that is—I think that this is

just the opposite of that. I think it actually is a way to get around

the bureaucracy and try to get some resources directly to some creative-thinking people. So I would be inclined to support your concept. I am interested in how we are going to pay for it and how

much we are talking about here. Maybe you can enlighten us to

where we are going to get the money and how much is going to be

spent.

134

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Rohrabacher, I think that is a very fair

question. First of all, you are correct. The idea is to get around the

bureaucracy. This is a DARPA-type program. This is going to be a

very thin program. I hope there is less than 100 people. They are

going to subcontract this out to the private sector, the public sector,

to national labs. You are going to have a program manager that is

going to try to, you know, corral all this, and the purpose—the reason you want to get it out of the bureaucracy is—Mr. Ehlers can—

he spoke to it eloquently the other day when he said, you know,

a part of science research is failing. This is high risk, high reward.

Some of these are going to fail. We expect them to fail. If you are

in the Department of Energy and you fail, then you are in trouble.

Here we want to take those risks. Just like the Internet, the developing Internet was a risk, developing stealth technology——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, I agree with you on that but what

about the money?

Chairman GORDON. Okay. The money—at the start of this session, I think it was maybe the fifth bill, I am not sure, there was

a bill in Congress that has also I think passed the Senate that

needs to be compromised or it needs to be conferenced that will do

away with the tax breaks that were given to so-called Big Oil for

additional drilling in the last Congress. The feeling was that with

the price of oil as high as it is, they don’t need additional incentives

to go drilling, and I think that is several billion—I will ask the

counsel, do you know how many billions of dollars that is?

Mr. COUNSEL. I believe it is scored at $14 billion roughly.

Chairman GORDON. That is $14 billion——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, Mr. Chairman, that is the right answer

because I happen to be one of the few Republicans who voted

against those tax incentives that I didn’t feel were necessary at a

time of high profit as well. So that is the right answer.

Chairman GORDON. We have spoken directly with the Speaker

about this. This is a high priority for her and again in the whole,

you know, so many of the private sector. So we will be going into

that trust fund for those—you know, that money. Now, again, in

all honesty, when you get into bookkeeping, you know, I guess it

is one pot or the other pot but that is where we intend to go for

new money.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would feel more comfortable with this if it indeed was being taken out of the current

bureaucracy and being fenced off, and I know a lot of people who

would have just the opposite reaction. To me, it seems it makes

more sense, but by and large, the idea about having a DARPA-like

agency or DARPA-like effort in the Department of Energy is a

sound idea. National security today depends on energy self-sufficiency and efficiency and I am going to be supportive of this concept and your legislation.

Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Chairman?

Chairman GORDON. Let me see if anybody from this side of the

aisle wanted to comment.

Ms. Giffords, then we will go to you.

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to speak

briefly and congratulate you and thank you for bringing this bill

forward. As we head into the Memorial Day weekend, we see

135

record-high prices for gasoline, and what this piece of legislation

does effectively is deal with three major issues that we face every

day in southern Arizona, we face across our country: energy independence, making sure that we start investing in energy sources

that are completely independent of foreign countries so that that

we can be self-sustaining. The second area is global warming and

we have heard testimony time and time again about how our planet is getting hotter, how we need to start investing in new types

of technology, new energy systems that are going to be clean and

that are not going to be releasing greenhouse gases. The third area

is U.S. competitiveness. We need, as the Rising Above the Gathering Storm report talks about, to make sure that we are producing

scientists and engineers and mathematicians so that we can complete in this global new economy. Where we are graduating 60,000

engineers, China graduates 600,000 engineers. So this piece of legislation, Mr. Chairman, pulls together some of the most pressing

issues of our day and offers a solution that—and like you said, Mr.

Chairman, some people will fail—but here we have a DARPA-like

agency where engineers and scientists can be free to think totally

outside the box and have that breakthrough Eureka moment that

is so important if we need to, you know, change the way that, you

know, we live on this planet. So Mr. Chairman, I am looking forward to voting for this bill. I want to thank you again for bringing

it forward.

Chairman GORDON. Ms. Biggert.

Ms. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a question.

You talked about the fund of $14 million, I believe. Is there a provision in this bill which will allow access to that fund?

Chairman GORDON. I don’t know.

Mr. HALL. Did you say billion or million?

Ms. BIGGERT. Billion. I think I said million but I meant billion.

Chairman GORDON. I don’t know how you would have in an authorization any kind of language that would tap into an appropriation. We would like to do it. I wish we could, but I don’t think that

would be possible.

Ms. BIGGERT. Well, we seem to be doing this in the housing area

where we have an affordable housing fund established. Couldn’t we

have a bill that would, if money is authorized, you take that money

if it is appropriated by the appropriators.

Chairman GORDON. I don’t think there is any way you can do

that. I mean, if you—potentially if this was Ways and Means and

going through Ways and Means, they might be able to go back to

that tax provision but I don’t think it is possible to do it with this

type of authorization.

Ms. BIGGERT. What about the Highway Trust Fund?

Chairman GORDON. Well, we don’t have authority over the Highway Trust Fund.

Ms. BIGGERT. No, I know, but this is similar. We actually authorized the money for the——

Chairman GORDON. The Transportation Committee does.

Ms. BIGGERT. Yes.

Chairman GORDON. But this is not——

136

Ms. BIGGERT. But isn’t there a way to establish that this provi- sion would be in this bill? Otherwise there is $14 billion there and

then we are going to go for $6 billion someplace else?

Chairman GORDON. You know, the simple fact is, the fund isn’t

jurisdiction to us. What I would like to do is, we have a period of

time between this bill now going to the Floor where we can have

a manager’s amendment, coming back in conference, and let me

point out to you a similar bill had 67 co-sponsors on the Senate including McConnell and Reid, and passed there with less than ten

opposition votes. But I would love to be able to find a way to guarantee these funds and we will be happy to work with you between

now and the final date to do that, and it would be, as Ms. Giffords

said, a Eureka moment if we can accomplish that. So we will work

together and try to do so but I don’t see how that can happen and

I certainly don’t have language for it——

Ms. BIGGERT. No, there is a fund that we have presently that the

appropriators have tried to do away with and we have always

made them aware how important it is. And that is a fund for scientists when they are working on a project and discover that what

they were working on fails but they found something else and they

can switch to that based on the funds that are available through

that. It seems like there is some way that we could get this into

the bill.

Chairman GORDON. Yeah, I would suggest that we work on that

together and we will have a manager’s amendment to accomplish

that and we will have a duel Eureka if we can get that accomplished.

Ms. BIGGERT. Thank you. I yield back.

Mr. HALL. Will the gentlelady yield?

Ms. BIGGERT. Yes, I yield to the Ranking Member.

Mr. HALL. By the way, doesn’t the Senate bill—it doesn’t set up

a new agency. That is half of my objection that they have cured for

us, and it still costs more—and we are trying to follow the Gathering Storm recommendations. It still costs more than the Gathering Storm reported by $1.6 billion additional, and I have asked

the gentlelady if she understands that this—and Professor Ehlers

would understand that this practically and potentially takes away

from basic research at the Office of Science which was also a priority of the Gathering Storm report. It is too much increase in a

new agency. That is my basic objections to it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GORDON. If the gentlelady would yield just to respond

to Mr. Hall. In response to his suggestion, we will have a manager’s amendment that will reduce the authorizing level by $1.4

billion. Again in an effort to be responsive, I think there is going

to be an amendment by Mr. Inglis that will provide protection for

the Office of Science, again trying to make a good bill better.

Ms. BIGGERT. Reclaiming my time. I think that we will be speaking to that amendment, but I also have one that will increase the

funding, or make sure that the Office of Science has full funding

for the priority. I think that Mr. Inglis’ amendment really sets a

floor which Appropriations will look at and say that that is all that

they have to fund in the Office of Science if his amendment is

passed, but we will address that later.

137

I yield back.

Chairman GORDON. Does anyone else wish to be recognized?

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Bilbray.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that my dear colleague

from California hadn’t read the bill because I think he would see

some of the red lights that we recognized when we made the mistake, or some people around here made the mistake, of creating

what they thought would be the super-agency for homeland security. And that creating a new structure with a new name was

somehow going to break through and create new answers, when in

fact it created new problems. So I just ask my colleagues to look

seriously at the issue. So often we are so quick as elected officials

to want to put our name onto a new agency so we can say we created that agency. And I don’t need to go down the list of how many

agencies that we created that supposedly are going to educate our

children, end poverty as we know it, secure our neighborhoods; and

in reality we spend a lot of money on a structure and not on answers. I just think that too often that a comparison with DARPA

is not appropriate at this level. DARPA has a guaranteed market,

the United States Federal Government, when it produces a product. What you are proposing today, is the United States Government is going to be buying this energy or whatever product comes

out of this agency. It is a whole different approach to this and I

just ask that we at least have some peer review by the scientists

about what does work or doesn’t work. I mean, American Chemical

Societies sat there and said that they saw the Office of Science that

would be the vehicle that is underfunded right now by $500 million

in unmet opportunities. Creating a new agency doesn’t fulfill the

scientific demand out there or the unmet opportunities just by hiring people to supervise another side of this issue. I yield back, Mr.

Chairman, but I just wanted to raise my concerns on this issue.

Chairman GORDON. Would you yield to me?

Mr. BILBRAY. Yes, I would, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you. You raised a lot of issues there.

Let me try to address some of them. On the one hand, you say just

giving more money doesn’t solve problems. Well, if you think that

the Department of Energy with doing the status quo right now is

adequate, which is basically what you are arguing for, then everything is hunky-dory.

Mr. BILBRAY. Reclaiming my time.

Chairman GORDON. Sure.

Mr. BILBRAY. I am not saying that, Mr. Chairman. I am saying

that creating a new separate section while you have the Office on

Science and then expect this new section to tool up, create its

whole bureaucracy, create internal protocols and then be able to respond is exactly the mistake we made with Homeland Security.

Chairman GORDON. I was going to get to that. So again, first of

all I think there is an argument for status quo. The second thing

is, you are absolutely correct about the Homeland Security Office.

It was a mess, and we learned from that, and the reason it was

a mess is, it was a part of the bureaucracy. ARPA–E is not going

to be part of bureaucracy. It is going to report directly to the Secretary of Energy. It is going to be a DARPA model. It is going to

138

be a very thin little line and so work is going to be done outside

of Washington, outside of the Department of Energy. You are going

to have a program director that is going to be the maestro that is

going to work with private sector, universities and labs to bring all

this together. The whole idea is to take it out of the bureaucracy

because the bureaucracy is not performing properly. The status quo

is not getting the job done. This is going to be different than what

they did in Homeland Security.

Mr. BILBRAY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GORDON. Certainly.

Mr. BILBRAY. Look, the direction comes from up above, and the

fact is, is that the priorities have been set by the Administration.

Both the past Administration, which did everything to decommission zero generation, shut down hydroelectric, shut down—you

know, basically defund ITER technology, which is exactly the kind

of definition we are talking about, developing fusion. The previous

Administration abandoned it. The present one didn’t. You are not

going to change that by creating a new structure with a new set

of bureaucrats that are going to still be bureaucrats once you created them. And to think that extra layer is somehow going to get

out from the administrative oversight, that is a challenge that we

have to do to get both administrations, Democrats and Republicans, to focus on this. It is so easy to talk about process, that by

creating a new agency, we will create a secret process or a new

process that will change the outcome. It is the substance that leads

to the outcome that matters and process be damned. I agree with

you that the outcome has not been successful. I just don’t think

this vehicle will be the vehicle to get to the outcome that you are

aiming for.

I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, sir. Your argument is for let us

continue to do what we are doing and that is a fair argument, and

if you want to support the status quo and you think that is getting

the job done, you should oppose this bill. If you are not satisfied

with status quo and you want a new approach, then we are going

to try to make that available. So if it is all right with everyone—

Mr. Ehlers?

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, just a brief word on this

latest argument. I wouldn’t hold up the Homeland Security Department as a good example for anything, and that is what my colleague is doing. He is holding it up as a bad example and it is simply because we took collection of a large number of different departments all filled with bureaucrats and threw them all in one pot

and said okay, do your work. It just doesn’t work well. The difference here is, we are not talking about having more bureaucrats.

We are hiring scientists and turning them loose. I have always said

the most effective way to get good results is hire the best scientists,

give them enough money to work with, close the door and walk

away and let them do their work because you get the most productivity, the brightest ideas at that point. So I don’t think that the

analogy of Homeland Security is valid at all. This will be a separate agency. It can be destroyed by over-administration. I think to

a certain extent that has happened to the Department of Energy

over the years. It has always been a stellar agency but it has been

139

mismanaged during the past—well, during the decade of the 1990s,

let us say. But this gives us an opportunity to try a different approach with a separate but integrated agency and I think it is certainly an experiment worth doing. We will know in a decade

whether or not the experiment is working and at that time our successors can make a judgment as to whether or not it should continue.

I yield back.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers.

I know to be courteous to Members, there are several markups

going on and folks have other things to do today so I am going to

ask unanimous consent that this bill is considered as read and

open to amendments at any point and that Members proceed with

the amendments in the order of roster. Without objection, so ordered.

The first amendment on the roster is the manager’s amendment

to the bill. The Clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 364——

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.

This amendment makes a series of perfecting changes in our efforts

to move the best bill possible out of the Committee. These changes

are based upon discussion during the Subcommittee markup and

discussion that we have had over the past two weeks. First, there

are several changes to address the issues related to hiring authority of the director and the selection of the talented individuals to

serve as program managers and staff. Having the right staff is critical to the success of ARPA–E. This is intended to be a lean operation. Nothing in the amendment alters that goal. The amendment

gives the director discretion to hire technical, financial and managerial staff in addition to the program managers. The amendment

also specifies that the Director should look toward academia in addition to private industry and former DARPA staff in making selections for the initial staff of ARPA–E. Furthermore, the amendment

recognizes that the Director is not expected to know the universe

of talented individuals capable of functioning as technical staff of

ARPA–E and therefore may contract with outside firms specializing

in recruiting such talent. The amendment also provides some technical corrections and program clarifications related to the authority

of the program managers. As I have stated before, ARPA–E is to

be a lean, responsive organization with the freedom to pursue highrisk, high-payoff research. The amendment clarifies the program

manager’s role in this process. The amendment also clarifies the

program manager’s authority and responsibility to recommend the

termination of any project that does not show promise. However,

only the person authorized to enter into contracts has the legal authority to terminate that contract. The amendment also changes

the name of the fund set up in this bill to reflect the evolution of

thought since the bill was first written in 2005. We are now focused on transforming the energy sector for reasons beyond just energy independence. The amendment drops the final year of the authorization to change the bill from a six-year to a five-year authorization. The bill reduces the overall cost of H.R. 364 by $1.4 billion.

140

Finally, in response to concerns expressed by a number of committee Members, the advice of outside parties and witnesses’ testimony at the Subcommittee hearing, this amendment drops the recruitment section of the bill.

I think this is a noncontroversial amendment which further perfects the bill, and I urge my colleagues to support its adoption.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I see the manager’s amendment strives

to make some improvements to the bill. I am still not comfortable

with the structure of the underlying bill. I still agree with the Senate that it does not set up a new agency, as you do, and the amendment money-wise, I think you would wind up with $4.9 billion and

the amendment I will send up is $750 million. There is quite a difference there, and I think we both are trying to pattern as much

as we can after the Gathering Storm reports that Norm Augustine wrote, and I believe that yours is $1.6 billion more than the Gathering Storm report requested, substantially more, and for that reason I object to it.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Hall. I think we take care

of your number figure in this manager’s amendment. We reduce

the authorization by $1.4 billion, and we think there are many

Members on both sides of the aisle that made recommendations

that have been incorporated into this manager’s amendment.

Mr. HALL. I will wait right here and watch.

Chairman GORDON. If there is no further discussion on the

amendment, the vote is on the amendment. All in favor, say aye.

Those opposed, say no. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed

to.

The second amendment on the roster is an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall.

Are you ready to proceed with your amendment?

Mr. HALL. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GORDON. The Clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 364

offered by Mr. Hall of Texas, Mr. Gingrey of Georgia and Mrs.

Biggert of Illinois.

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with

the reading. Without objection, so ordered.

The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain the

amendment.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, there seems to be a consensus that the

types of projects ARPA–E would engage in would be beneficial to

addressing our country’s ongoing energy supply needs but I think

we tend to diverge when we look to find out how to implement

these projects. Chairman Gordon’s bill would create a new bureaucracy within the Department of Energy that would oversee ARPA–

E. I don’t feel that this is the best way to do this rather than jumping right into the idea that it has a one-and-one record. In the first

place, DARPA, DOD was considered a success and the other one

ARPA, Homeland Security, as suggested by the gentleman from

California, was considered a failure. So rather than jumping right

into an idea that has a one-and-one or an even and even record,

I feel that we really need to approach this with a little more caution and skepticism before throwing $4.9 billion into an unknown.

Now, some are going to argue that we don’t have time to wait and

141

study the idea but I disagree with that. The DOE is a $23 billion

agency that is currently conducting research in all areas that H.R.

364 directs ARPA–E to address; so to take a step back and say let

us make sure that this is the right thing to do before committing

billions of taxpayer dollars I think makes some sense. The HallGingrey-Biggert substitute amendment recognizes while the Department of Energy has the authority to promote technology transfer of basic and applied research, there is a need to more quickly

identify opportunities to accelerate the commercial application of

new energy technologies to meet our national energy needs as well.

Also a more fully integrated approach to advanced energy research

is going to help bridge the gap between basic research and applied

technology to overcome long-term and high-risk barriers to the development of advanced energy technologies with an eye toward fiscal conservatism. My substitute is conditioned on the section 1821

study in EPAct. This was the study that required DOE to look at

‘‘best practices’’ management at the Department of Energy including DARPA to DOE. I have sent, by the way, the Secretary a letter

to complete this study, and I had 12 of my colleagues here join with

us. The substitute amendment does not create a new agency but

requires the Secretary to use his existing authority coupled with

the newly established DARPA hiring authority to undertake ARPAtype projects. It authorizes $750 million, not $4.9 billion, over five

years for the Secretary to carry out the projects and requires the

Secretary to report to Congress on their status. So it also allows

the Secretary to coordinate with other agencies on advanced energy

projects, directs the Secretary to coordinate with the to-be-appointed technology transfer coordinator, allows the Secretary to

award prizes for achievement under an advanced energy research

project, and establishes cost sharing according to the Energy Policy

Act of 2005.

I think this substitute amendment is sensible. I think it is a responsible alternative to the underlying bill and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I yield back, sir.

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Gingrey is recognized.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I rise to support

the Hall-Biggert-Gingrey amendment. I think the idea of ARPA–E

certainly has merit and I can understand how it came forward. You

know, it is sort of interesting how we come up with acronyms and

the acronym DARPA sounds good, has a good ring to it, but if we

followed that line, then this new agency would be called EARPA.

We decided to name it ARPA–E, which sounds a little bit better.

The one in the Homeland Security Department, I guess we could

call that HARPA. That doesn’t have a real good ring to it and it

wasn’t very successful.

But I agree with the Ranking Member, Mr. Hall, in regard to

creating yet another expensive agency within the Department of

Energy when, as he pointed out, we are talking about a $23 billion

agency which really right now I think is working. The Department

of Energy with its Secretary, Sam Bodman, chemical engineer by

training, someone that is running a good department, and the Office of Science within the Department of Energy I think is probably

the place where this kind of activity should be under the existing

142

funding. And there is a recent letter, Mr. Chairman, you are familiar with it, from the American Chemical Society, of which I am a

member as a graduate of Georgia Tech with a Bachelor of Science

in chemistry, but I just believe that the Ranking Member hit the

nail right on the head in regard to this. It sounds good but it is

growing the government. It is unnecessary. It is duplication. Instead of really being ARPA–E and sounding good, we ought to call

it EARPA and reject it, so I yield back my time.

Chairman GORDON. Ms. Biggert is recognized.

Ms. BIGGERT. Thank you. Move to strike the last word. Thank

you, Mr. Chairman. I know how hard you worked on this. And I

think we all agree that this project is very important. Research and

development is very important. And I think really the only difference that we are really talking about is whether to have it in

the Department of Energy or have it as a separate agency. And I

think that over the years you have been on this committee, and I

have been on this committee, we have really worked to improve the

Department of Energy. There is—I would like to just read a couple

words from a hearing that was held last year, March of 2006, Dr.

David Mowery testified from the University of California at Berkeley and talking about proposals for expanded R&D in energy, in alternative energy. He said, ‘‘We are very positive.’’ He served on the

National Academy of Science panel that assessed the value of DOE

investments in alternative energy and energy conservation and energy efficiency programs, and the consensus was that the returns

of these investments were positive and the Committee felt that the

Department of Energy had overall done an effective job of managing these. And I think that probably is true but I think that they

can do better and we can do better. And I think to bring it back

to the Department, I think we worked on improving the Office of

Science to be the research and development arm as the starting

point there. And they have always worked with outside groups, and

I think to put it in there would be a benefit to have improvement.

You know, I worked on GNEP and was very frustrated with the

Department when they wouldn’t do a systems analysis to really get

the nuclear program going, and we argued about that. So I think

there is a lot of room. But I hate to see everybody saying how bad

the Department of Energy has done and the Office of Science because I think if we look back, I remember going to Argonne with

the Secretary of Energy, Spencer Abraham, and looking at the fuel

cell that was being developed for the hydrogen cars. And it was a

big fuel cell and he said how fast can you reduce that so that we

can put it into a car, and I have since then driven a hydrogen car.

So I think all the things are there. We just need to have the oversight and to have a program like this that they can use. You know,

we changed the title from the Director of Office of Science to the

Under Secretary to give that top priority, and here I think we are

not ignoring the problem. I mean, we are not for status quo. It is

really imperative that all of us, with the global economy and global

competition, that we move with expeditious means. I just—I think,

you know, the only difference I see is that to take it out of the Department of Energy where they have been moving and we have

given them more direction and we can proceed expeditiously that

way.

143

With that, I yield back, but I support the——

Chairman GORDON. If the gentlelady would yield, I just—once

again, there are not good guys and bad guys here. There are just

two different opinions. If you are for status quo, then you should

support Mr. Hall’s amendment, and if you are not, you should oppose it, and we are not taking it out of the Department of Energy.

We are taking it out of the Department of Energy’s bureaucracy.

It reports directly to the Secretary of Energy. So it is still within

the Department of Energy. And if I could make one final point,

part of the amendment best illustrates why we need to have a

change. A part of this amendment suggests that the Department

of Energy should have a study to determine whether or not this is

a good idea. Well, in July of 2005, we passed legislation that required the Department of Energy to have a study, return it within

18 months of whether this should be done. That study was done

January of 2007 and we still don’t have it. I mean, that is the best

argument for getting it out of the Department of Energy. They

can’t even do a study. So again, there are not good guys or bad

guys, there are just two views, and I yield back.

Ms. BIGGERT. You know, the ‘‘it is time for a change’’ worked in

a broader sense for you on the other side of the aisle last year but

I do think that we are really—we are not ignoring the problem, we

are not for the status quo. We all want to work to ensure that the

Department of Energy moves forward and the Senate has said that

it could be within the Department of Energy so maybe we will

come back to discuss this again but I would yield to Mr. Bilbray.

Mr. BILBRAY. Yes, Mr. Chairman——

Chairman GORDON. Just to get us in the right—I think your time

is—and I have been part of it—is more than expired. Let me——

Ms. BIGGERT. I yield back.

Chairman GORDON. Let us recognize Mr. Bilbray to strike the

last word and be on his on time there.

Mr. BILBRAY. Strike the last word.

Chairman GORDON. The gentleman is recognized.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I just think in all fairness that the

characterization that anyone who opposes this bill is for the status

quo, I think it is inappropriate and unfair. I think that we have

to recognize that there are many different approaches to how we

move forward with the energy independence issue and that just because someone may not agree with the Chair’s bill here doesn’t

mean that they do not want to move forward and do not want to

try new things. I just think it is quite unfair to say it is either status quo, the way it is now or my way and my way is the only way

to change things. And I think that is—and I think even the Chair

will recognize that is an unfair characterization. I think that what

we have is a proposal here to create a new vehicle, new structure

and think that it will get on operation and be more effective earlier

than the science department over there is able to move forward

with their agenda. And if you think that you can create a new

agency or new structure and be able to move forward before the existing structure can tool up and move forward with a new approach, that is the difference we have here. But I just think it is

unfair to say that it is so cut and dry that there are those who

want nothing done and those who are on my side.

144

I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Hall is recognized.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, it is not a status quo. We are directing

the Department to do ARPA–E projects. I think we go really more

out of the status quo than you do in that we direct them to. I have

read your instructions to them. I may be wrong but I don’t find in

yours where you use the word ‘‘shall.’’ Maybe you do, but we clearly

do. You can’t say that we are only status quo when we have, ‘‘Initial project not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of

this act that the Secretary shall designate up to two ARPA–E

projects for funding.’’ That is shall. That is a direction to them.

That is not status quo. You may have some shalls. I just quickly

looked over them but your shalls aren’t as strong as my shalls.

Mine are in capital letters and red and ugly. And one of the few

things I agree with the Senate on is, we don’t need a new agency

within the Department of Energy, and go ask the Department of

Energy what they think about having this within their department

there to do battle with. I don’t think you will find anybody over

there for it. That doesn’t make it good or bad but those are the

facts. And we set up as much funds as needed to carry out the purpose. We didn’t set up—the Senate has that. Well, I am with the

Senate now and it is unusual for me to be for the Senate. This is

not status quo. It is just not as much money by a long shot that

you are suggesting to put into the Department of Energy and the

Senate is going to knock it off just as quickly as it gets over there.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, sir. I will just point out, it may

not have been a big hairy ‘‘shall’’ but the Department of Energy

was told that it shall contract to have a study on whether or not

there should be something similar to ARPA–E that was supposed

to have been presented in the ‘‘shall’’ sense to Congress in January

2007. They have never even contracted it out. So, you know, shalls,

you have to do more than shalls.

Mr. HALL. That is the reason we sent the letter to them, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman?

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized for five minutes.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me again note that I think that your

basic concept is correct and that ARPA–E concept is something

that might be very beneficial as compared to the way the setup is

now at the Department of Energy. You have made the argument

that this is still part of the Department of Energy. Let me note,

however, that your argument about the status quo not working and

those hesitant about your idea, if your position is that the status

quo is not working as it should be at the Department of Energy in

terms of energy development, we should be taking the funds from

that status quo that is not working and using that as the basis for

a restructuring rather than trying to, you know, just bring in other

funds when your position is that the current funds being spent in

the status quo are not working. So while I am supporting your concept, again I am very concerned about the redirection of funds

when you by your very premise are suggesting that the current

funds are not being put to best use.

Mr. HALL. Will the gentleman yield?

145

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I certainly would.

Mr. HALL. And you are aware of the fact that authorization in my amendment, in our amendment here, that we authorize $750

million over five years for ARPA–E projects at DOE. Theirs is $4.9

billion without saying exactly where it is going to come from, and

the Senate, probably more sensible than either of us, has said that

they authorized so much funds as needed to carry out their purposes and at that time as they are needed they have to relegate

or designate where those funds are coming from. That is what you

are asking for and that is what you are not getting.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And again, the idea of having ARPA–E is certainly I believe the correct idea but if we are going to restructure

because the current system is not working, that is where we should

be getting the funds from, that system that is not working.

Chairman GORDON. If there is no further—oh, excuse me.

Mr. AKIN. Could the gentleman yield for just one additional

thought, Mr. Rohrabacher?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Sure.

Mr. AKIN. It seems to me that if we have got an agency that is

not doing what they ought to do, if we give them a whole lot more

money, we are kind of rewarding them for doing what we don’t

want them to do and I think what you are saying makes a certain

amount of sense. Let us take the money out of the Department and

put it where it is going to do some good. If we have already told

them they shall do a report and they haven’t done it, then I say

let us take their funding and put it into something that will do it,

but let us not reward them by doubling their funding. Thank you.

Chairman GORDON. If there is no further discussion on the

amendment, then all in favor say aye. Aye. Oh, excuse me, no. Let

me start over, Mr. Hall, so there will be no confusion. All in favor

of the amendment say aye. Opposed, say no. No. The no’s seem to

have it.

Ms. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I would request a recorded vote.

Chairman GORDON. 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.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Ms. Woolsey.

Ms. WOOLSEY. No.

The CLERK. Ms. Woolsey votes no. Mr. Udall.

Mr. UDALL. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Udall 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.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Lipinski.

Mr. LIPINSKI. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Lipinski votes no. Mr. Lampson.

Mr. LAMPSON. No.

146

The CLERK. Mr. Lampson votes no. Ms. Giffords.

Ms. GIFFORDS. No.

The CLERK. Ms. Giffords votes no. Mr. McNerney.

Mr. MCNERNEY. No.

The CLERK. Mr. McNerney votes no. Mr. Kanjorski.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Ms. Hooley.

Ms. HOOLEY. No.

The CLERK. Ms. Hooley votes no. Mr. Rothman.

Mr. ROTHMAN. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Rothman votes no. Mr. Honda.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Matheson.

Mr. MATHESON. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Matheson votes no. Mr. Ross.

Mr. ROSS. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Ross votes no. Mr. Chandler.

Mr. CHANDLER. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Chandler votes no. Mr. Carnahan.

Mr. CARNAHAN. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Carnahan votes no. Mr. Melancon.

Mr. MELANCON. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Melancon 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. 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. Reluctantly, no.

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. Mr. Bartlett.

Mr. BARTLETT. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Bartlett votes no. Mr. Ehlers.

Mr. EHLERS. Also reluctantly no.

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers votes no. Mr. Lucas.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mrs. Biggert.

Ms. BIGGERT. Aye.

The CLERK. Mrs. Biggert votes aye. Mr. Akin.

Mr. AKIN. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Akin votes aye. Mr. Bonner.

Mr. BONNER. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Bonner votes aye. Mr. Feeney.

Mr. FEENEY. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Feeney votes aye. Mr. Neugebauer.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer votes aye. Mr. Inglis.

[No response.]

147

The CLERK. Mr. Reichert.

Mr. REICHERT. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Reichert votes aye. Mr. McCaul.

Mr. MCCAUL. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. McCaul votes aye. Mr. Diaz-Balart.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Balart votes aye. Mr. Gingrey.

Mr. GINGREY. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Gingrey votes aye. Mr. Bilbray.

Mr. BILBRAY. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Bilbray votes aye. Mr. Adrian Smith.

Mr. SMITH. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Adrian Smith votes aye.

Chairman GORDON. Is there anyone who did not have an opportunity to cast a vote? Mr. Inglis.

Mr. INGLIS. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis votes no.

Chairman GORDON. The Clerk will report the vote.

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, 12 Members vote aye and 24 Members vote no.

148

149

Chairman GORDON. The motion is not agreed to.

The third amendment on the roster is offered by the gentleman

from South Carolina, Mr. Inglis. I think he just—oh, there he is.

Okay. Mr. Inglis, do you need to have yours moved further down?

Okay. The Clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 364 offered by Mr. Inglis of

South Carolina.

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with

the reading. Without further objection, so ordered.

The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his

amendment.

Mr. INGLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am in between two

markups so hopefully this can work.

This amendment is designed to do a couple things to hopefully

improve the bill, and we have had discussions with the Chairman’s

staff about this, and I very much appreciate the Chairman’s openness to work to address some concerns we have had, and the

amendment addresses three major concerns. One is protecting the

existing research in the Office of Science, second is protecting

ARPA–E from earmarks, and third is finding a way to clarify how

ARPA–E will overcome the valley of death tech transfer issue.

So that first item, the amendment provides at least one year of

protection for existing funding levels for the Office of Science, basically providing that no funds can be initially given for ARPA–E unless authorized funds for the Office of Science are at fiscal year

2007 appropriated levels plus the inflation rate. So the concept

there is ARPA–E can be funded but only after the Office of Science

is funded at least fiscal year 2007 levels plus inflation. So the first

year that ARPA–E would exist, the test is whether the Office of

Science has been funded. If it has been funded at fiscal year 2007

plus inflationary rate, then ARPA–E can receive funds. So that is

the first goal, to protect the existing research of the Office of

Science.

The second is to protect ARPA–E from earmarks and what we

have done in this amendment is, it directs the program managers

of ARPA–E to select projects ‘‘on the basis of merit’’ with advice

from the advisory committee where appropriate. So legislatively

protecting against earmarks is difficult but this review approach

has succeeded in keeping the Advanced Technology Program, ATP,

completely free from earmarks for the past ten years and so hopefully it will work in the case of ARPA–E.

The third goal we had here was finding a way to clarify how

ARPA–E would overcome the valley of death issues and so what we

provide for is a minimum of two and one-half percent allocation for

tech transfer and outreach activities and in addition applicants for

ARPA–E projects must consider future commercial applications of

the project including how commercial entities could be included to

help increase market application technology.

So those three changes are what is in the amendment and I

would urge my colleagues to accept the amendment as an improvement of ARPA–E.

Chairman GORDON. The question is raised, or the gentleman

raised these questions at the Subcommittee markup. They were

very constructive. We worked in a way to try to accomplish that.

150

Again, you have made a good bill better and I recommend passage

of this amendment.

Ms. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman?

Chairman GORDON. The gentlelady is recognized.

Ms. BIGGERT. I move to strike the last word.

Chairman GORDON. The gentlelady is recognized for five minutes.

Ms. BIGGERT. I thank the Chairman. I am sorry to say that I

strongly oppose this amendment by my colleague. While it purports

to protect the DOE Office of Science for at least one year, I actually

think it does no such thing, and that is really why I take issue with

this amendment. The amendment says we should fund ARPA–E

before we fund the DOE Office of Science—or that we should fund

DOE before ARPA–E. I will give my colleague that much but where

does it set the bar? It sets the bar at the level of the fiscal year

2007 budget for DOE Office of Science plus inflation, and inflation

is currently somewhere between two and three percent, I think. So

this sets the bar so low that if you are not looking down, you will

trip over it. I think that as part of his American competitive initiative, the President has proposed to double the funding for DOE Office of Science over ten years. In his fiscal year 2007 budget request for the Office of Science, the President requested a 14 percent increase. Congress didn’t give it to him so we are already behind. He requested a 16 percent increase in fiscal year 2008.

Whether or not Congress will provide that increase remains to be

seen, and I certainly hope we would, especially under the leadership of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that we would

fund it. As part of their innovation agenda, they have advocated

doubling the budget for DOE Office of Science in half the time that

the President has proposed. So in fiscal year 2007, if Congress provides the DOE Office of Science only an inflationary increase and

then starts funneling money into the new ARPA–E bureaucracy,

that is sure not likely to fund much research in year one. So I

think that this Congress would have failed miserably, and we will

have failed to live up to our commitment to fund the ACI, our

Democratic colleagues will have failed to live up to their innovation

agenda and we will have failed to adequately fund research in the

physical sciences.

I have been one of the strongest advocates for the DOE Office of

Science since being elected to Congress in 1998, and why? Well, because when I arrived at Congress, I learned very quickly how much

we underfunded basic research in the physical sciences. Between

1994 and 2003, spending on research in the physical sciences

shrank from 50 percent to less than 40 percent of the total federal

R&D spending as Congress put more money into the life sciences.

During roughly that same period, the DOE Office of Science, the

Nation’s primary supportive research in the physical sciences,

funding over 40 percent of basic research in the physical sciences,

more than any other federal agency, had received flat funding. But

in constant dollars, its budget has been reduced by roughly 13 percent. Unfortunately, the research itself had been mostly impacted

since the cost to maintain existing facilities and their associated

staffs continued to rise with inflation. Only in recent years have we

made some progress filling this hole. But we won’t see real

151

progress until we provide the increases outlined in the President’s

ACI and the Democrats’ innovation agenda. These are the increases that the Augustine committee heartily endorsed and clearly

were a greater priority than ARPA–E. Increasing the Office of

Science budget by the rate of inflation just won’t cut it and it

shouldn’t be where we set the bar for ARPA–E. I strongly urge my

colleagues to oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance——

Mr. HALL. Will the gentlelady yield before she yields back?

Ms. BIGGERT. I will yield to the Ranking Member.

Mr. HALL. Is it your position that there is no adequate protection

for the Office of Science in that they provide for only one year in

the threshold for funding?

Ms. BIGGERT. Are you asking me or Mr. Inglis?

Mr. HALL. Yes. Is that your position?

Ms. BIGGERT. That is my position.

Mr. HALL. And do you not have an amendment a little bit later

that addresses this?

Ms. BIGGERT. Yes, I do.

Mr. HALL. Okay. I don’t think we ought to—I don’t like the concept of tying the hands of the Director or the Secretary of Energy

and I object to the amendment. I ask the Committee to vote no.

Chairman GORDON. If there is no further discussion, the vote will

be on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Those opposed,

say no. The ayes have it.

The fourth amendment on the roster—let us see—is from the

gentlelady, Ms. Biggert. Are you skipping number four and going

on to a later amendment, Ms. Biggert?

Ms. BIGGERT. I am skipping number four and going to number

five.

Chairman GORDON. Okay. The Clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 364 offered by Mrs. Biggert of

Illinois.

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with

the reading. Without objection, so ordered.

The gentlelady is recognized for five minutes to explain her

amendment.

Ms. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me make sure I

have the right one here.

Okay. My amendment is very straightforward. It simply requires

that Congress fully fund the Department of Energy’s Office of

Science before spending billions of dollars on a new, untested

ARPA–E.

I wish I could say that I came up with this idea, but I didn’t.

Instead, the idea came directly from the Augustine Committee, the

group responsible for writing the National Academy of Science

Gathering Storm report on which the bill before us today is based,

purportedly.

In testimony before this committee in the 109th Congress, the

only representative of the Augustine Committee to testify before

this committee on ARPA–E concepts said, ‘‘In funding ARPA–E, it

is critical that this funding not jeopardize the basic research supported by the Department of Energy’s Office of Science. The Committee’s recommendations are priorities, and its top recommendaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:49 Jan 05, 2009 Jkt 037729 PO 00000 Frm 00159 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\110MAR~1\37729\37729.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
152

tion in the area of research is to increase the funding of basic research by 10 percent per year over the next seven years. The Augustine Committee applauds the Administration’s American Competitiveness Initiative, particularly the courageous efforts of the

Secretary of Energy, Samuel Bodman, to make basic research activities a high priority in the Department of Energy budget. The

Augustine report strongly recommends the support of ARPA–E

come from new funding.’’ That was the testimony of Dr. Stephen

Chu on behalf of the Augustine Committee. I don’t think it can get

any clearer than that.

Supporting over 40 percent of the total federal funding for basic

research in the physical sciences, more than any other federal

agency. The DOE Office of Science is the Nation’s primary supporter of research in the physical sciences. The Office of Science

has led the way in creating a unique system of large-scale specialized user facilities for scientific discovery. The collection of cutting

edge one-of-a-kind tools makes the Office of Science a unique and

critical component of the Federal Science Portfolio.

Other federal science agencies, such as the National Institutes of

Health and the National Science Foundation, greatly depend upon

these Office of Science facilities in carrying out their own research

activities. Under the President’s fiscal year 2008 budget, 21,500 researchers would have access to these DOE facilities. Nearly half of

those users will be university faculty and students. Many will be

from other federal agencies, and a significant number will be from

U.S. industry.

Recognizing the importance and contributions of the DOE Office

of Science, President Bush made doubling its budget one of the pillars of the ACI. And my democratic colleagues, as I said before,

made it a similar priority in their innovation agenda, proposing to

double its funding in half the time that President Bush had proposed. But it was this committee that recognized the crucial role

that the Office of Science played in our Federal Research Portfolio,

long before it became part of any initiative or agenda of either

party. This Committee unanimously approved the provisions that

became Title 9 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, including a provision that became Section 971 and authorized significant budget increases for the DOE Office of Science. Congress approved these increases with broad bipartisan support, and they are now law.

My amendment simply says that we should live up to the current

law first; law we made in this committee. We have been told by the

supporters of this bill that it is consistent with the recommendations of the Augustine Committee. We have also been told that the

funding for ARPA–E will be new funding. We have heard this over

and over, and in a recent hearing on ARPA–E, during the Subcommittee markup of this bill, and again today.

Well, if my colleagues who support the bill are being honest with

those of us who are skeptical that there are billions of dollars in

new money to create another bureaucracy within the DOE, then

they should support this amendment. By supporting this amendment, we are not saying we shouldn’t create ARPA–E; rather, by

supporting this amendment we are voting to reaffirm the priorities

established in the Augustine report. We are voting to make federal

funding for basic research a priority over funding for an idea to creVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:49 Jan 05, 2009 Jkt 037729 PO 00000 Frm 00160 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\110MAR~1\37729\37729.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
153

ate a new bureaucracy. By supporting this amendment, we are voting to ensure that money for this new bureaucracy doesn’t come at

the expense of our basic research programs. It is a simple decision,

really. What are our priorities?

So I urge adoption of the amendment and yield back the balance

of my time.

Chairman GORDON. Very briefly, the gentlelady’s good faith

amendment would require that the Office of Science have a 20.5

percent increase next year, 20.5 percent increase before ARPA–E

can take effect. That is simply not realistic, and is a killer amendment for this bill.

If there is no further discussion, the vote will be on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Those opposed, say no. The nos have

it.

Ms. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a role call vote.

Chairman GORDON. 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. Ms. Woolsey.

[No response]

The CLERK. Mr. Udall.

Mr. UDALL. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Udall votes no. Mr. Wu.

[No response]

The CLERK. 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. Mr. Lampson.

Mr. LAMPSON. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Lampson votes no. Ms. Giffords.

[No response]

The CLERK. Mr. McNerney.

Mr. MCNERNEY. No.

The CLERK. Mr. McNerney votes no. Mr. Kanjorski.

[No response]

The CLERK. Ms. Hooley.

Ms. HOOLEY. No.

The CLERK. Ms. Hooley votes no. Mr. Rothman.

Mr. ROTHMAN. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Rothman votes no. Mr. Honda.

Mr. HONDA. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Honda votes no. Mr. Matheson.

Mr. MATHESON. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Matheson votes no. Mr. Ross.

The CLERK. Mr. Chandler.

Mr. CHANDLER. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Chandler votes no. Mr. Carnahan.

154

[No response]

The CLERK. Mr. Melancon.

[No response]

The CLERK. Mr. Melancon.

Mr. MELANCON. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Melancon 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. 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.

[No response]

The CLERK. Mr. Bartlett.

Mr. BARTLETT. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Bartlett votes no. Mr. Ehlers.

Mr. EHLERS. Yes.

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers votes aye. Mr. Lucas.

[No response]

The CLERK. Mrs. Biggert.

Ms. BIGGERT. Aye.

The CLERK. Mrs. Biggert votes aye. Mr. Akin.

Mr. AKIN. Yes.

The CLERK. Mr. Akin votes aye. Mr. Bonner.

Mr. BONNER. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Bonner votes aye. Mr. Feeney.

[No response]

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer votes aye. Mr. Inglis.

Mr. INGLIS. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis votes no. Mr. Reichert.

Mr. REICHERT. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Reichert votes aye. Mr. McCaul.

[No response]

The CLERK. Mr. Diaz-Balart.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Diaz-Balart votes aye. Mr. Gingrey.

Mr. GINGREY. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Gingrey 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.

Chairman GORDON. Are there any Members who have not cast

a vote?

If not, the Clerk will report.

155

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, 11 Members vote aye, and 19 Members vote no.

156

157

Chairman GORDON. The amendment is not agreed to. The fifth

amendment on the roster is offered by the gentlelady from Illinois,

Ms. Biggert. Are you ready to proceed with your amendment?

Ms. BIGGERT. I am, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last

word.

Chairman GORDON. The Clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 364 authored by Mrs. Biggert of

Illinois.

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with

the reading. Without objection so ordered. The gentlelady is recognized for five minutes to explain her amendment.

Ms. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try again.

This is another straightforward amendment. It strikes the provision added during Subcommittee markup that limits to eight percent the amount of ARPA–E Project funds that can be allocated to

Federally-Funded Research and Development Centers or FFRDCs.

This eight percent cap I think is absolutely arbitrary. The Gathering Storm report said nothing about an eight percent cap. Instead

it included language to the contrary, and I quote. ‘‘Solutions will

require coordinated efforts among industrial, academic, and government laboratories.’’ And one of ARPA–E’s purported benefits will be

to, and I quote, ‘‘foster consortia of companies, colleges, and universities, and laboratories to work on critical research problems.’’

Nor do I recall a single witness who testified before this committee, either in the 109th Congress or more recently before the

Energy and Environment Subcommittee ever suggesting, much less

advocating, that we should tie the hands of program managers by

limiting to eight percent the amount of ARPA–E funds available to

FFRDCs. Correct me if I am wrong but I don’t recall a single one.

Dr. Stephen Chu, the only member of the Augustine Committee

to actually testify before this committee about ARPA–E, recommended neither an eight percent cap nor tying the hands of the

program managers in this way. And he also, as a matter of fact,

said quite the opposite. ‘‘This agency would itself perform no research that would fund work conducted by university start-ups, established firms and National laboratories.’’ And he then went on to

say anyone could compete for funding from ARPA–E, including universities, industry, businesses, and National laboratories, or ideally

a consortium of these agencies.

So while the member, a member of the Augustine Committee

gave this committee clear guidance, the bill before us does exactly

the opposite of what was advised. Instead of empowering program

managers to be independent, the bill ties the hands of program

managers before the agency even exists by telling them how and

where they can spend ARPA–E funds. Instead of favoring one

group over another, the bill contains an arbitrary limitation that

places one group at a disadvantage compared to the others.

And if you think this arbitrary funding limitation only applies to

DOE National laboratories, you would be mistaken. The list of

FFRDCs is actually maintained by the National Science Foundation, and by the latest count there are actually 37 different

FFRDCs spread across the nine different departments, including

the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, and NASA.

158

All are eligible for ARPA–E funding but only eight percent of it according to the bill as reported by the Subcommittee.

I would ask these questions of my colleagues from Arizona, California, Colorado, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Illinois, New Jersey, Tennessee, and Washington, all of which are home to FFRDCs,

and are you sure that none of the scientists or engineers at the

FFRDCs in your state have an idea for solving our nation’s national energy challenges? Are you sure that an eight percent cap

isn’t going to prevent them from getting funding from ARPA–E for

this? For that great idea? And are you willing to risk tying the

hands of ARPA–E program managers in such a way as to preclude

them from funding that great idea?

If you are not, you should support this amendment, eliminate the

cap and the funding available to the FFRDCs. Make the ARPA–E

program managers truly independent. Leave the funding decisions

to them and in doing so you will insure that this bill remains true

to the National Academy’s recommendation that ARPA–E be designed as a lean, effective, and agile, but largely independent organization.

I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and yield

back the balance of my time.

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Hall is recognized.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, just very briefly. She describes an

eight percent limitation. That is not in line with the Gathering

Storm recommendations. It is not fair to the labs. They ought to

be able to fight for funds the same as universities or private companies do. I urge the approval of the amendment.

Yield back.

Chairman GORDON. Will all due respect this another killer

amendment, and if there is no further discussion, the vote occurs

on the amendment.

All those in favor of the amendment, say aye. Those opposed, no.

The no’s have it and——

Ms. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I would request a recorded vote.

Chairman GORDON. 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. Udall.

Mr. UDALL. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Udall votes no. Mr. Wu.

[No response]

The CLERK. 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. Mr. Lampson.

159

Mr. LAMPSON. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Lampson votes no. Ms. Giffords.

[No response]

The CLERK. Mr. McNerney.

Mr. MCNERNEY. No.

The CLERK. Mr. McNerney votes no. Mr. Kanjorski.

[No response]

The CLERK. Ms. Hooley.

Ms. HOOLEY. No.

The CLERK. Ms. Hooley votes no. Mr. Rothman.

Mr. ROTHMAN. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Rothman votes no. Mr. Honda.

Mr. HONDA. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Honda votes no. Mr. Matheson.

Mr. MATHESON. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Matheson votes no. Mr. Ross.

Mr. ROSS. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Ross votes no. Mr. Chandler.

Mr. CHANDLER. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Chandler votes no. Mr. Carnahan.

[No response]

The CLERK. Mr. Melancon.

[No response]

The CLERK. Melancon.

Mr. MELANCON. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Melancon 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. 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.

[No response]

The CLERK. Mr. Bartlett.

Mr. BARTLETT. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Bartlett votes no. Mr. Ehlers.

Mr. EHLERS. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers votes no. Mr. Lucas.

[No response]

The CLERK. Mrs. Biggert.

Ms. BIGGERT. Aye.

The CLERK. Mrs. Biggert votes aye. Mr. Akin.

Mr. AKIN. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Akin votes aye. Mr. Bonner.

[No response]

The CLERK. Mr. Feeney.

[No response]

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer.

160

[No response]

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis.

[No response]

The CLERK. Mr. Reichert.

Mr. REICHERT. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Reichert votes aye. Mr. McCaul.

[No response]

The CLERK. Mr. Diaz-Balart.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Diaz-Balart votes aye. Mr. Gingrey.

Mr. GINGREY. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Gingrey 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.

Chairman GORDON. Are there any Members who have not been

recorded?

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman.

The CLERK. Mr. Costello has not voted.

Mr. COSTELLO. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Costello votes no.

Chairman GORDON. Let us go to that side now.

The CLERK. Mr. Bonner has not voted.

Mr. BONNER. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Bonner votes aye. Ms. Giffords is not recorded.

Ms. GIFFORDS. No.

The CLERK. Ms. Giffords votes no.

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Wu.

The CLERK. Mr. Wu is not recorded.

Mr. WU. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Wu votes no.

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Inglis.

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis is not recorded.

Mr. INGLIS. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis votes aye.

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Carnahan.

The CLERK. Mr. Carnahan is not recorded.

Mr. CARNAHAN. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Carnahan votes no.

Chairman GORDON. Mr. McCaul.

Mr. MCCAUL. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. McCaul is not recorded.

Mr. MCCAUL. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. McCaul votes aye.

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Neugebauer.

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer is not recorded.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer votes aye.

Chairman GORDON. Rohrabacher.

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye.

Chairman GORDON. Okay. Report the vote.

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, 13 Members vote aye, 23 vote no.

161

162

Chairman GORDON. The amendment fails. The sixth amendment

on the roster is offered by the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Biggert.

Are you ready to proceed with your amendment?

Let me ask the gentlelady does she have any more amendments,

and if so, please tell us which one.

Ms. BIGGERT. No, Mr. Chairman. Two is enough.

Chairman GORDON. Okay. Mr. Ehlers.

Ms. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, if I might just at some point I

would like to know why these are killer amendments, but we can

discuss that later.

Chairman GORDON. I would be happy to tell you.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Ehlers is recognized.

Mr. EHLERS. I have an amendment at the desk.

Chairman GORDON. The Clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 364 authored by Mr. Ehlers of

Michigan.

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. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

When the Gathering Storm report initially suggested creating

ARPA–E, I was very, very skeptical about it. I wasn’t sure that it

would work, and I thought the current Office of Science could take

on that responsibility.

What has changed my mind, and I now support it, is just thinking back historically through the history of the Department of Energy. It has been plagued at various times by Secretaries of Energy

who were purely political appointees who knew very little about

science or about the operation of the Department. And as a result

of preserving that historical record, I decided it is very important

that we return back to what the Gathering Storm report originally

recommended, and that is that ARPA–E report to the Under Secretary for Science rather than to the Secretary.

I believe it is very important that the agency report to someone

who is a scientist and has a scientific background and can properly

defend their requests to the Department of Management and Budget and that, or the Office of Management and Budget and to the

President.

And so I am offering an amendment to return the reporting line

to what was recommended in the Gathering Storm report, largely

on the historical basis of how the Department has been run and

how it has had hills and valleys over the years. As I mentioned earlier, just pointing back to the decade of the ’90s, there was a series

of Secretaries who had very little if any knowledge of science and

certainly did not do a very good job of operating the Department

or setting priorities.

Now that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 elevated the position of

the Director of the Office of Science to the Under Secretary level,

providing the Under Secretary the necessary authority to promote

the role of science and technology research and development at the

Department, I am convinced that it would be better for the ARPA–

E agency to report to the Under Secretary for Science rather than

to the Secretary. And I feel very strongly about that.

163

In addition, my argument is strengthened by the fact that Mr.

Augustine and the Gathering Storm report recommended the same

thing. I believe that creating a new agency focused expressly in the

development of innovative energy technologies and putting it outside the science missions of the Department underlines the authority of the Under Secretary for Science. In fact, the authors of the

Gathering Storm included in their recommendation that the Director of ARPA–E report to the Under Secretary, definitely not to the

Secretary of Energy.

So I strongly urge the adoption of this. I think it will improve

the bill and will make it a more workable agency as a result. We

have said a lot here this morning about bureaucrats, getting bureaucrats out of the way. I think in view of the fact that we want

to avoid bureaucracy, it is best to have them reporting directly to

the scientists rather than to a Secretary, who is frequently not a

scientist.

I want to make clear that my comments here do not refer to the

current Secretary of Energy, who I think is one of the best we have

had in a long time, and I certainly appreciate Secretary Bodman’s

work. But we have an outstanding Under Secretary of Science in

Dr. Raymond Orbach, who has a proven record as both a scientist

and as an administrator.

And so at this point especially this would be good, but I think

if you look at the historical record, you will also agree it is best to

have the agency report to the Under Secretary of Science.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman GORDON. The gentleman yield?

Mr. EHLERS. Yes. I would be happy to yield.

Chairman GORDON. Let me say to the gentleman, there is no

question this is a good-faith amendment, and we did not receive it

until this afternoon or yesterday. Was it yesterday? Well, we recently received it. The original purpose of going to or reporting to

the Secretary was to try to get away from bureaucracy, to go to the

head of the stream so you wouldn’t get into any of that. I still think

that is probably a good idea.

I am going to oppose this amendment today, but I want to continue to talk with the gentleman before we, as we go through this

process. I may be wrong, you know, and but on short notice I think

it does streamline it, and I think it is better to go directly to it,

but I will oppose it, but as I say, I think this is a discussion that

we need to continue to have. And so as has been earlier said I reluctantly oppose what I know is a good-faith amendment.

Mr. EHLERS. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate those comments.

I would point out that it was, the amendment was submitted at

nine o’clock, 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday. We thought that would be adequate time, and I think it is not only a good-faith amendment, but

it is a good amendment, and so I would appreciate everyone’s vote

on this particular amendment.

Chairman GORDON. Is there further discussion on the amendment?

Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would just note that Mr., Dr. Ehlers is

highly respected in terms of his understanding of science and how

science works and how it works in this system, and I will be supVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:49 Jan 05, 2009 Jkt 037729 PO 00000 Frm 00171 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\110MAR~1\37729\37729.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
164

porting him in that. And when we are talking, his whole theory is

let us get the, make sure that a scientist is someone who is being

reported to, and of course, we have a disagreement between the scientists, and Mr. Chairman, I don’t believe that you are a scientist,

so I will be siding with the scientist.

Chairman GORDON. Well, if the gentleman would yield, I do

know that if there is a disagreement between the Under Secretary

scientist and the Secretary, I know who is going to win that one.

So with no further discussion—oh, yes, there is further discussion. Ms. Biggert is recognized.

Ms. BIGGERT. I move to strike the last word.

Chairman GORDON. The lady is recognized for five minutes.

Ms. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman. I couldn’t agree more with

my colleague, Dr. Ehlers. In conjunction with Senator Domenici

and Senator Bingaman and Secretary Bodman I worked very hard

during that conference on the Energy Policy Act of 2005, to create

the position of Under Secretary of Science at the Department of

Energy, and I think that this organizational structure is working

to bridge the gap between fundamental discoveries and their applied use. Dr. Ray Orbach, a former Director of the Office of

Science and the first to fill this position, made a point to get quickly up to speed on applied energy technology programs as soon as

he assumed the position of Under Secretary. And why? And that

was to make sure that the Department’s basic research programs

were helping the Applied Energy Programs overcome fundamental

technical obstacles to the development and deployment of advanced

energy technologies.

I think the Augustine Committee recognized how important this

organizational change was at DOE, and that is why they were explicit that the Director of ARPA–E should report to the Under Secretary of Science. And in my opinion the Gathering Storm report

wasn’t clear about a lot of things, but the witnesses at our Subcommittee hearing last month generally agreed the ARPA–E recommendation was more vague, but this is one of the things that

was quite clear in the report. It is even in the very first sentence,

the action item at the beginning of the recommendation. So this

bill essentially creates, you know, without it, another stovepipe

within the DOE by keeping ARPA–E totally autonomous from the

Department’s basic and applied research programs, creating an unnecessary bureaucracy.

So one way to avoid this stovepipe effect is for the Director to report to the Under Secretary of Science, and I would urge you, you

know, to work with Dr. Ehlers, and I would yield to Dr. Ehlers.

Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I apologize to

the Chairman if you did not see the amendment in time to give it

adequate consideration. I don’t, my goal is not to embarrass you by

defeating you here, and I don’t even know if I could, but if you sincerely believe it would be better to offer it as a manager’s amendment on the Floor or some other assurance that this will receive

the consideration there or in Rules Committee, that is certainly an

option. But lacking any assurances of that, then I would like to

proceed to a vote here.

165

So I would appreciate your reaction to that. I certainly am not

trying to stir the pot or upset your game. I just want fair consideration.

Chairman GORDON. If the gentleman will yield, clearly you have

nothing but the best intentions, and I am sure if the amendment

was filed by you, it is an error on our part by not getting it early.

I cannot promise to you that we will make this change, only that

we will consider it as we go forward. Again, my feeling is that to

help reduce the bureaucracy by reporting directly to the Secretary,

you are going to have less bureaucracy, and as a practical matter,

the Secretary is going to overrule any Under Secretary if they are

not happy with it.

I think we’ll discuss it more. I don’t want to mislead you into

thinking that this is automatically going to be a part of a manager’s amendment. I would suggest if you want to vote today, you

should have a vote, because I can’t make that promise.

Mr. EHLERS. Well, Mr. Chairman, I recognize you can’t make

that promise, but I don’t want to take the time for a roll call vote

if, in fact, we are going to continue our discussions on this.

Mr. HALL. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. EHLERS. Yes. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. HALL. Do you think this is more of a killer amendment than

Ms. Biggert’s are?

Chairman GORDON. No, it is not.

Mr. HALL. Then I recommend passage of the amendment.

Chairman GORDON. Is there further discussion? If there is no further discussion, then the vote is on Mr. Ehlers’ amendment. All in

favor of the amendment say aye. Those opposed say no. It appears

the no’s have it, but would you like to have a show of hands? What

would you like to do?

Mr. EHLERS. A show of hands is adequate, I believe.

Chairman GORDON. Okay.

Mr. EHLERS. As long as we can each count.

Chairman GORDON. All right. That is a big assumption here, but

those in favor please raise your hand. I get 15. All opposed, raise

your hand. And I believe there is 21. If there is no disagreement,

then the amendment failed.

The eighth amendment on the roster is offered by the gentleman

from California, Mr. Bilbray. Are you ready to proceed?

The Clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 36——

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the amendment be accepted as read.

Chairman GORDON. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes

to explain his amendment.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, it is quite clear that the intent here

is to create a $14 million or I mean, $14 billion new vehicle. All

my bill does is strike that money, basically places this in a position

of making some priority decisions here. Do we want to create this

new vehicle? Do we want to have it separate and isolated? And it

basically says that there are some priority decisions to be made,

and those priority decisions I think up front ought to be that DOE,

the Office of Science, is going to be impacted one way or the other,

the people that just developed the new lithium battery that is not

166

toxic, can handle high energy without creating hazardous problems

in the future, that we need to make some priority decisions. And

this bill just basically strikes the funding for the new agency and

the new group and basically says that in the tradition of the 1990s

when we required that if you wanted to create something new and

add something new, you had to find the money within the existing

structure. My motion basically does that, Mr. Chairman, and I

yield back.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Bilbray. I would just quickly

say that the Bilbray amendment would eliminate funding for

ARPA–E, effectively killing the program, and if there is no further

discussion——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GORDON. Yes. Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would suggest that if Mr. Bilbray’s amendment is adopted, that it will not kill the idea, that instead it will

force us to set the priorities that we are supposed to set. If the argument in favor of ARPA–E is that the status quo currently going

on is not an efficient use of resources and thus, a restructuring is

necessary, we should have the courage enough to say what programs are not an efficient use of the money and what in the status

quo isn’t worthy of financing and use that money to finance ARPA–

E. Should Mr. Bilbray’s amendment not be accepted, I would, of

course, be planning to move forward on the Floor with an amendment that will accomplish just that.

If we do believe that this is a necessary restructuring, we should

have the courage to say why it is necessary by eliminating those

things that are costing money that aren’t cost effective, that are

currently being spent on. And this idea of just shoving it off to the

oil companies, which, I, again, voted against that particular subsidy, tax-incentive subsidy, but that is just a way of getting around

trying to set priorities and doing the tough job that we are supposed to do here.

So I would suggest Mr. Bilbray’s amendment is going in the right

direction and forcing us to try to make set priorities and get rid

of failing programs, if, indeed, the status quo isn’t working, which

is the premise of this whole argument, and I support that, by the

way. I support that concept. Let us have courage enough to defund

those projects that aren’t working.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Bilbray. I mean, Mr. Rohrabacher. I am afraid there won’t be a majority courage to get that

done, and so if there is no further discussion, all in favor of the

amendment say aye. All opposed say no. The no’s have it.

The 9th amendment on the roster is offered by the gentleman

from Nebraska, Mr. Smith. Are you ready to proceed with your

amendment?

Mr. SMITH OF NEBRASKA. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Chairman GORDON. The Clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 364 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 the

amendment.

167

Mr. SMITH OF NEBRASKA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members. My amendment would transfer all of the funds, the relevant

funds and projects to the appropriate programs at DOE. If a study

required under Section 1821 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, concludes that ARPA–E should not be established, the study mandated under Section 1821 of EPA would look at the applicability of

the management practices used by the Department of Defense, Advanced Research Projects Agency, DARPA, to research programs at

the Department of Energy and the advisability of creating an agency within DOE modeled after DARPA. A National Academy of Public Administration, an independent and non-partisan organization.

I would emphasize an independent and non-partisan organization

is charged with carrying out this study.

Mr. Chairman, I am extremely concerned about the creation of

a new bureaucracy and possible waste of taxpayer dollars should

ARPA–E be established without fully addressing whether this new

agency is the most effective tool for delivering new technologies to

the marketplace.

Therefore, I believe it would be beneficial to have the Academy

of Public Administration’s recommendation on whether it is even

advisable to create a new agency. Should the Academy’s findings

reflect negatively on the establishment of ARPA–E, the agency

would be terminated, and all funds would be directed to the appropriate programs within the Department of Energy. We have heard

several times this morning that various amendments may be killer

amendments. Certainly this one is not a killer amendment. It simply defers to an independent, non-partisan organization for their

recommendations.

Also, I would suggest that the approach of a new agency, perhaps

taking dollars from other projects, is indeed a continuation of the

status quo. I hope that this inclusion of an independent organization’s opinion would lead to favorable public policy and wise use of

taxpayer dollars.

I yield back.

Chairman GORDON. With all due respect let me repeat what I

said earlier. Again, this is a killer amendment, and the reason it

is a killer amendment, this same amendment was passed by the

Congress, signed by the President, requiring the Department of Energy to do this study and send it to Congress by January of 2007.

The Department of Energy has yet to even put it out for study, you

know, so if you are going to, and this was one of Mr. Hall’s big

‘‘shalls.’’ The Department shall do that, but they did not do it. They

didn’t do it then, there is no reason that says they are going to do

it again, and so this is a killer amendment.

And, again, it is a demonstration of ineptitude, I think, within

the Department of Energy when they are flaunting themselves and

not doing the will of the Congress.

Mr. Bilbray.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, pardon me if I am wrong, but the

gentleman from Nebraska has given you, you know, you say let us

jump, let us move now, and he is creating a parachute for you that

says only if it is a long haul, only if the report comes out and says

there is a problem, you know, the fact is that you are saying the

study doesn’t come out, doesn’t say it is a problem, it is going to

168

kill the bill. He is giving you a safety valve where the fact is if the

experts in the field come back after we have moved ahead and

says, you have got major problems, that gives you a fallback to say,

okay, let us do a rethink, but only if they come out and say that.

Not beforehand.

So in all fairness I think the gentleman from Nebraska is trying

to be more than accommodating to your original legislation that

creates a safety escape hatch in case the people on the front line

say this could be a major disaster. And so it actually could reinforce your argument for moving forward now because you do have

that parachute in the back. So the gentleman from Nebraska seems

like he is trying to accommodate your intention of moving forward

while still guaranteeing some protection for the taxpayers and for

the consumer that needs this technology moving forward.

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HALL. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BILBRAY. I yield.

Mr. HALL. You are saying it is not a killer, just allows the program to move forward, aren’t you?

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GORDON. Yes, Mr. Rothman.

Mr. ROTHMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To just respond to my

distinguished colleague’s remarks from the other side, sometimes

as we all know people of goodwill and positions of power use their

positions to thwart opposing ideologies or opposing approaches to

problems simply by, well, by various means including delay, passive aggression, whatever you want to call it. And I think what our

Chairman has indicated is that the Department of Energy has used

its power to thwart reforms in the past, even those directed by the

Congress through delay.

And so while one may view the gentleman’s amendment as simply an opportunity to provide for what he describes as a parachute,

or it has been described as a parachute, in the eyes of others would

simply be enabling an agency of this Administration that has resisted the will and thwarted the will of the Congress to deny them

an opportunity to do so again.

So I would respectfully oppose this amendment.

Chairman GORDON. If there is no—Mr. Smith is recognized.

Mr. SMITH OF NEBRASKA. Move to strike the last word. I would

point out that if there is a delay of the study, this agency continues. I mean, I think I heard the Chairman say that the Department has delayed various studies and so forth. If that takes place,

this new agency continues, and it is only if the study takes place

and finds very objectively that the agency is unnecessary and that

taxpayer dollars could be better spent elsewhere, then the dollars

could be spent elsewhere in accordance with the study.

Mr. ROTHMAN. If the gentleman would yield.

Mr. SMITH OF NEBRASKA. Yes.

Mr. ROTHMAN. I thank the gentleman. Is it the usual occurrence

when a new project is suggested to begin that at the same time

funds are authorized to then study whether the project is worthwhile?

169

Mr. SMITH OF NEBRASKA. Oftentimes projects have sunset

clauses. Mine is basically only a sunset if the study concludes that

it should sunset. Otherwise it continues indefinitely.

Mr. ROTHMAN. If the gentleman would continue to yield. I think

that, you know, one might argue that in which branch of government the decision about whether to continue a program should continue and to leave it in the hands of this administration to decide

that a Congressionally-authorized and approved program must end

I think would be the wrong approach. I think certainly if the Administration, for whatever reason, presented evidence to the Congress that something we were doing here in the Congress was

wasteful or wrong, the majority of us on each side of the aisle

would respond appropriately.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. SMITH OF NEBRASKA. I appreciate your concern. I would say

from my experience in public policy that a lot of new programs are

started with the best of intentions and are continued with more

and more dollars with newly-developed constituencies perhaps hijacking various programs. I am not accusing this project immediately of such violations.

I would say, however, deferring to the independent organization

such as the Public Administration, Academy of Public Administration, a very well-respected organization that does a very nice job

of staying above the political fray, especially in a nonpartisan manner, that getting their input on this is wise and I think very appropriate.

I yield back.

Chairman GORDON. If there is no further discussion the vote is

on the gentleman from Nebraska’s amendment. All in favor say

aye. Opposed, no. The no’s——

Mr. SMITH OF NEBRASKA. Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a recorded vote, please.

Chairman GORDON. The Clerk will call the roll.

The CLERK. Mr. 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.

Ms. WOOLSEY. No.

The CLERK. Ms. Woolsey votes no. Mr. Udall.

[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. Mr. Lampson.

Mr. LAMPSON. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Lampson votes no. Ms. Giffords.

170

Ms. GIFFORDS. No.

The CLERK. Ms. Giffords votes no. Mr. McNerney.

Mr. MCNERNEY. No.

The CLERK. Mr. McNerney votes no. Mr. Kanjorski.

[No response]

The CLERK. Ms. Hooley.

Ms. HOOLEY. No.

The CLERK. Ms. Hooley votes no. Mr. Rothman.

Mr. ROTHMAN. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Rothman votes no. Mr. Honda.

[No response]

The CLERK. Mr. Matheson.

Mr. MATHESON. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Matheson votes no. Mr. Ross.

Mr. ROSS. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Ross votes no. Mr. Chandler.

Mr. CHANDLER. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Chandler votes no. Mr. Carnahan.

Mr. CARNAHAN. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Carnahan votes no. Mr. Melancon.

Mr. MELANCON. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Melancon 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. 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. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. Mr. Bartlett.

Mr. BARTLETT. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Bartlett votes no. Mr. Ehlers.

Mr. EHLERS. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers votes no. Mr. Lucas.

Mr. LUCAS. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Lucas votes aye. Mrs. Biggert.

Ms. BIGGERT. Aye.

The CLERK. Mrs. Biggert votes aye. Mr. Akin.

Mr. AKIN. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Akin votes aye. Mr. Bonner.

Mr. BONNER. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Bonner votes aye. Mr. Feeney.

Mr. FEENEY. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Feeney votes aye. Mr. Neugebauer.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer votes aye. Mr. Inglis.

Mr. INGLIS. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis votes no. Mr. Reichert.

171

Mr. REICHERT. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Reichert 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. Gingrey.

Mr. GINGREY. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Gingrey 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.

Chairman GORDON. Are there any Members not recorded? The

Clerk will report the vote.

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, 13 Members vote aye, 25 vote no.

172

173

Chairman GORDON. The amendment is not carried.

The tenth amendment on the roster is offered by the gentleman

from Georgia, Mr. Gingrey. Are you ready to proceed with your

amendment?

Mr. GINGREY. I am, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the

desk.

Chairman GORDON. The Clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 364 offered by Mr. Gingrey of

Georgia.

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. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, thank you. If you didn’t like the

amendment submitted by the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr.

Smith, you are really going to hate this one, Mr. Chairman.

But I think it is an amendment that maybe is more logical to all

the Members on both sides of the aisle. Basically EPAct 2005, Energy Policy Act 2005, in Section 1821, that is why it is some similar

to Mr. Smith’s amendment, call for the study to say, to ask the

question would ARPA–E, we were playing with those acronyms a

little earlier, but the Advanced Project Research Act, under the Department of Energy, would it fit, would it be as successful as the

DARPA Program under the Department of Defense, which, of

course, has existed for 50 years or more and has a fantastic track

record.

I submit, Mr. Chairman, that maybe it is not analogous to that

program in that under DARPA there is a ready-made customer,

and of course, that is our military. And many of the studies that

are done by DARPA, there is this opportunity to immediately apply

technology to the field, if you will. But that is not actually the way

it would occur with a similar program under the Department of

Energy. There may be no market, and I suggest that for that reason that a study before we authorize $5 billion over five years for

a new program, that this study under Section 1821 of the Energy

Policy Act of 2005 is supposed to be done, in fact, five months ago,

January of ’07. And that this is the right way to do things. This

is the right way to spend the people’s money to make sure that just

a few pages out of a very thick volume, the rise of the Gathering

Storm report, which doesn’t really get very specific.

So I think it is very appropriate in EPAct 2005, that this study

be done before we go ahead and spend the money. That is how my

amendment, Mr. Chairman, is different from the Smith amendment. His amendment says, well, you know, you go ahead and start

the program, you start the funding, and if and when the study finally gets done and it shows that it is not a worthwhile project,

then you stop the funding.

My amendment simply says you don’t start the funding until you

do the study. If you go ahead and start the program without the

study, it is like scheduling a wedding before you pick the bride and

groom. So I think it is just a very logical amendment, and it is a

commonsense, fiscally responsible amendment.

I don’t mind seeing government grow if there is a good reason

for it, but I think that the study should be done before we start

spending the money, and I will yield back my time.

174

Mr. HALL. Will the gentleman yield.

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Hall is recognized.

Mr. HALL. Actually, you just conditioned the establishment of

ARPA–E on a positive recommendation which was made in the Energy Policy Act. Right?

Mr. GINGREY. That is correct, Mr. Hall.

Mr. HALL. I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Chairman GORDON. I will be very brief and say that the gentleman, my friend from Georgia correctly described my view of this

amendment. I mean, you know, it is, we talk about this a lot, so

I am starting to be repetitious on this. But keep in mind the Department of Energy by law passed by Congress, signed by the

President was required with a big shall, was required to do this

study and present it to Congress. I have written them myself asking for it. They have not even commissioned it. I mean, you know,

if that is, you know, it is just not a credible approach, and so if

there is no further discussion, we will have a vote on the amendment.

All in favor of Mr. Gingrey’s amendment say aye. Opposed, nay.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I would like a recorded vote. Thank

you.

Chairman GORDON. 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. Ms. Woolsey.

Ms. WOOLSEY. No.

The CLERK. Ms. Woolsey votes no. Mr. Udall.

[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. Mr. Lampson.

Mr. LAMPSON. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Lampson votes no. Ms. Giffords.

Ms. GIFFORDS. No.

The CLERK. Ms. Giffords votes no. Mr. McNerney.

Mr. MCNERNEY. No.

The CLERK. Mr. McNerney votes no. Mr. Kanjorski.

[No response]

The CLERK. Ms. Hooley.

[No response]

The CLERK. Mr. Rothman.

Mr. ROTHMAN. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Rothman votes no. Mr. Honda.

[No response]

175

The CLERK. Mr. Matheson.

Mr. MATHESON. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Matheson votes no. Mr. Ross.

Mr. ROSS. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Ross votes no. Mr. Chandler.

Mr. CHANDLER. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Chandler votes no. Mr. Carnahan.

Mr. CARNAHAN. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Carnahan votes no. Mr. Melancon.

Mr. MELANCON. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Melancon 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. 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. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. Mr. Bartlett.

Mr. BARTLETT. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Bartlett votes no. Mr. Ehlers.

[No response]

The CLERK. Mr. Lucas.

Mr. LUCAS. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Lucas votes ayes. Mrs. Biggert.

Ms. BIGGERT. Aye.

The CLERK. Mrs. Biggert votes aye. Mr. Akin.

Mr. AKIN. Yes.

The CLERK. Mr. Akin votes aye. Mr. Bonner.

Mr. BONNER. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Bonner votes aye. Mr. Feeney.

Mr. FEENEY. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Feeney votes aye. Mr. Neugebauer.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer votes aye. Mr. Inglis.

Mr. INGLIS. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis votes no. Mr. Reichert.

Mr. REICHERT. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Reichert 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. Gingrey.

Mr. GINGREY. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Gingrey votes aye. Mr. Bilbray.

Mr. BILBRAY. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Bilbray votes aye. Mr. Adrian Smith.

Mr. SMITH OF NEBRASKA. Aye.

176

The CLERK. Mr. Adrian Smith votes aye.

Chairman GORDON. Any Members not recorded? Dr. Ehlers.

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers is not recorded.

Mr. EHLERS. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers votes no.

Chairman GORDON. Any other Members here? The Clerk will report the vote.

With no objections since the vote has not been recorded yet, we

will allow the gentlelady from Oregon to vote.

Ms. HOOLEY. No.

The CLERK. Ms. Hooley votes no.

Chairman GORDON. Once again, is there any other—the Clerk

will report.

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, 13 Members vote aye, 25 Members

vote no.

177

178

Chairman GORDON. The amendment fails.

The eleventh amendment on the roster is offered by the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Akin. Are you ready to proceed with

your amendment?

Mr. AKIN. I am, Mr. Chairman, and I have to say to start out

the whole idea of ARPA–E’s——

Chairman GORDON. If I could, my mistake. The Clerk will report

the amendment.

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 364 offered by Mr. Akin of Missouri.

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. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I was inclined to really like your bill,

because I like Arby’s. They have roast beef sandwiches and milkshakes there, and I thought it was going to be a pretty good thing,

but now I understand we got a $4.9 billion program going to run

for five years. Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply says at the

end of five years, we are going to sunset. In other words, we are

going to take a look, and if the program did what you wanted it

to do, then we can proceed. If it suggests that maybe it should be

folded into a different agency or bureau or something like that, we

could make those changes. But we just take a good look at it.

My impression, Mr. Chairman, is that five years or four years or

three years, even one year from this day there is no one in this

committee that will remember we did this other than perhaps you

as the Chairman. And so five years out I think maybe this thing

could take a review. We would then assess whether it has really

worked or not.

So, Mr. Chairman, it just seems to me to make sense why not

subject it to a review five years out. I just wanted to know, I would

yield to you, what you think about that idea.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you. I hope our kids will remember

this, and I hope they remember it gratefully and fondly.

Let me respond by saying the current bill already states that

after 54 months, not 60, but after 54 months the President’s Committee on Science and Technology will evaluate ARPA–E and include a recommendation on whether it should be continued or terminated. Congress then can act on those recommendations, on that

recommendation.

Mr. AKIN. So you are assuming it is going to be continued unless

it is terminated.

Chairman GORDON. No, no, no. We are saying that, well——

Mr. AKIN. If we didn’t take any action on their recommendation,

then it would continue. Correct?

Chairman GORDON. Yes. It leaves, again, it is stated clearly after

54 months the President’s Committee on Science and Technology

will evaluate ARPA–E and include a recommendation on whether

it should be continued or terminated. Congress can then act on the

recommendation.

Mr. AKIN. But my amendment would have been the converse. We

would stop it unless we thought it was good. Now, I assume that

you would really like that idea more than this other approach. Is

that correct, Mr. Chairman?

179

Chairman GORDON. I think the appropriate approach is, again,

after 54 months, having a thorough review by a qualified operation.

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, if I could interrupt. Am I reading between the lines that you probably wouldn’t support my amendment?

Chairman GORDON. You are very insightful.

Mr. AKIN. And being a person of some statistical savvy and seeing how the previous votes have gone, would it be alright if I don’t

ask for a roll call vote?

Chairman GORDON. I would add to those accolades courteous,

too.

Mr. AKIN. Then, Mr. Chairman, I would, unless there is further

discussion, proceed to a voice vote and move on with the day.

Chairman GORDON. All in favor of the——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I just want to make sure I am on the record

in supporting Mr. Akin’s amendment, because even though I am

very supportive of this concept, ARPA–E, I think that it is incumbent upon us to say that we will have to reaffirm that this program

is working after a given time period. 60 months being a good time

period, suggests five years, that we should have to make a positive

act to reaffirm that this deserves the taxpayers’ money and is an

effective restructuring that is taking place.

So I would think Mr. Akin’s suggestion is a very, very positive

one, and if we really believe in what we are doing, this is exactly

the type of measure that we should have in all of the changes that

we make, that we have to reaffirm that they have been positive

changes or that they go out of existence.

Thank you very much.

Chairman GORDON. If the gentleman would yield very quickly,

this really, we are trying to accomplish the same thing in that

there should be a review. I think we are looking at it in a real political sense. Right now as you very well know we could have a majority of the Congress that thinks this is a good program, but if one

person in the Senate decides to put a hold, and we have to make

an affirmative vote, that vote may never come up. Even if it is not

with a hold, you know, less than a majority can stop something

from coming up there.

So it is just, again, we are trying to accomplish the same thing

in that clearly if it is not a good bill and a good program, it should

stop, just like the managers have the authority if there is a specific

research program that is going on, to terminate it. But I think the

political reality is that a majority of the Congress can support this

program yet the will of that majority might not be heard.

So if there is no further discussion, all in favor of the gentleman’s amendment say aye. Opposed nay. The amendment fails.

The twelfth amendment on the roster is offered by the gentleman

from Florida, Mr. Diaz-Balart. Are you ready to proceed with your

amendment?

Mr. MCCAUL. I am Mr. Chairman, and thank you for extending

the courtesy of allowing me to speak for the gentleman from Florida.

The amendment simply——

180

Chairman GORDON. The Clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 364 offered by Mr. McCaul for

Mr. Diaz-Balart.

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. MCCAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment simply sunsets ARPA–E after five years if importation of foreign energy sources is not reduced by at least five percent. A reduction of

five percent is a modest and very achievable goal. If the goal is not

reached, or, I am sorry, if the goal is reached, then ARPA–E would

be sunseted after 10 years if importation of foreign energy sources

is not reduced by at least 20 percent.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment just reinstates the goals of the

original bill before that language was removed at the Subcommittee markup two weeks ago. This reduction would be certified by the Under Secretary of Energy and Science in coordination

with the Energy Information Administration.

I am concerned that we are creating a brand new, billion dollar

agency without any form of accountability. This amendment simply

gives this new agency clear and measurable goals. It establishes

benchmarks that are consistent with one of the main goals of the

program; to reduce America’s dependence on foreign sources of energy. It holds the program accountable for tangible results and protects the taxpayers from unnecessary and wasteful spending.

And with that I yield back.

Chairman GORDON. Is there further discussion on the amendment?

If not, all of those in favor of the amendment say aye. All opposed, no. The no’s have it.

Mr. MCCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote.

Chairman GORDON. 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. Ms. Woolsey.

Ms. WOOLSEY. No.

The CLERK. Ms. Woolsey votes no. Mr. Udall.

[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. Mr. Lampson.

Mr. LAMPSON. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Lampson votes no. Ms. Giffords.

[No response]

181

The CLERK. Mr. McNerney.

Mr. MCNERNEY. No.

The CLERK. Mr. McNerney votes no. Mr. Kanjorski.

[No response]

The CLERK. Ms. Hooley.

Ms. HOOLEY. No.

The CLERK. Ms. Hooley votes no. Mr. Rothman.

Mr. ROTHMAN. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Rothman votes no. Mr. Honda.

[No response]

The CLERK. Mr. Matheson.

Mr. MATHESON. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Matheson votes no. Mr. Ross.

Mr. ROSS. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Ross votes no. Mr. Chandler.

Mr. CHANDLER. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Chandler votes no. Mr. Carnahan.

Mr. CARNAHAN. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Carnahan votes no. Mr. Melancon.

Mr. MELANCON. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Melancon votes no. Mr. Hill.

Mr. HILL. Yes.

The CLERK. Mr. Hill votes aye. Mr. Mitchell.

Mr. MITCHELL. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Mitchell votes no. Mr. Wilson.

Mr. WILSON. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Wilson 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. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Bartlett votes no. Mr. Ehlers.

Mr. EHLERS. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers votes no. Mr. Lucas.

Mr. LUCAS. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Lucas votes aye. Mrs. Biggert.

[No response]

The CLERK. Mr. Akin.

Mr. AKIN. Yes.

The CLERK. Mr. Akin votes aye. Mr. Bonner.

Mr. BONNER. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Bonner votes aye. Mr. Feeney.

Mr. FEENEY. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Feeney votes aye. Mr. Neugebauer.

[No response]

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis.

Mr. INGLIS. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis votes no. Mr. Reichert.

Mr. REICHERT. Aye.

182

The CLERK. Mr. Reichert 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. Gingrey.

Mr. GINGREY. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Gingrey votes aye. Mr. Bilbray.

[No response]

The CLERK. Mr. Adrian Smith.

Mr. SMITH OF NEBRASKA. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Adrian Smith votes aye.

Chairman GORDON. How is the gentlelady from Arizona, Ms. Giffords recorded?

The CLERK. Ms. Giffords is not recorded.

Ms. GIFFORDS. No.

The CLERK. Ms. Giffords votes no.

Chairman GORDON. And the Clerk will report the vote.

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, 12 Members vote aye, 23 vote no.

183

184

Chairman GORDON. The amendment fails.

The thirteenth amendment on the roster is offered by the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Gingrey.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I have an amendment

at the desk.

Chairman GORDON. The Clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 364 offered by Mr. Gingrey of

Georgia.

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with

the reading. Without objection so ordered. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I won’t take five

minutes.

This is a friendly amendment. I hope the Chairman and the Majority Members, as well as the Minority will like this amendment.

It is a little misleading. It says it inserts a savings clause. Typically when you talk about savings, you are talking about cutting

something. In this instance, of course, Mr. Chairman, it basically

says that the authorities granted by this Act are in addition to the

existing authorities granted to the Secretary of Energy and not intended to supersede or modify any existing authorities.

In other words, I want to make sure that the program is a good

program within the Department of Energy, the Office of Science.

We all agree, I think, that Secretary Bodman is doing an outstanding job. We don’t want to cut into the muscle of programs that

are already working well and make sure that the language is clear

that this is an additional program and not to take away from existing programs.

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Gingrey, I think this is lucky 13, and it

is appropriate that we conclude our amendments today with what

I hope will be a unanimous vote for your amendment.

And let me point out that I know that the Minority was not successful on a variety of amendments today, but they were also successful on some earlier. There were lots of discussions, lots of the

suggestions were put into this bill, so do not think this is not, I

mean, this bill has lots of mothers and fathers.

And so with that I will call a vote.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GORDON. Yes, Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I hate to be the skunk at the lawn party

here, but——

Chairman GORDON. Well, you have before so go ahead.

Mr. ROHRABACHER.—it isn’t unanimous. This is exactly the

wrong way to go. This is exactly the wrong way to go. If we are

saying that the current structure does not work, we should not be

saying that the current structure will not be touched, and this is

just an addition. So we are just adding more spending onto something that has failed. If it has failed, we need something else, we

need restructuring. Let us take it from where it has failed, and

again, I will have to say that I agree with the concept of restructuring, creating ARPA–E, because I don’t believe the current system is working, and it is overly bureaucratic. It is overtly an old

boy network spread throughout the scientific community on energy

research. We need to break through that and to have some real reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:49 Jan 05, 2009 Jkt 037729 PO 00000 Frm 00192 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\110MAR~1\37729\37729.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
185

form here. Just suggesting that we are not going to touch the

system——

Mr. GINGREY. If the gentleman would yield.

Mr. ROHRABACHER.—this is counter to what we are trying to do

here. So I oppose this.

Mr. GINGREY. If the gentleman would yield to me, Mr. Rohrabacher, and I thank the gentleman for yielding. And let me just

say that, you know, the final vote here in Committee has not been

taken on this bill, and I at the outset suggested that maybe this

program was not needed. And I still feel that way, and that will

become obvious when the final vote is taken, although I have great

respect, great respect for our Chairman and most of the time I am

going to be supportive of much of his legislation as I have been so

far in the 110th.

But what this amendment basically says is if this bill does pass,

which I think those of us on this side of the aisle can count, it very

likely will pass, but in that event I certainly don’t want to have

this funding to cut into the meat of the overall Department of Energy budget. That is the reason.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, that is clearly your intent, and that is

clearly the wrong direction to go, and I am sorry. If you have got

a reason to create restructuring within Department of Energy, we

should be restructuring it by defunding those things that aren’t

working well and not just adding more spending onto programs

that have failed.

So I would——

Chairman GORDON. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROHRABACHER.—I just want to be on the record.

Chairman GORDON. If the gentleman from California would yield,

let me suggest that you don’t smell quite as bad as you point out,

in that we are not doing our job. I think there are probably some

things at the Department of Energy that aren’t as good as they

should be.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right.

Chairman GORDON. We are not doing our job here in oversight

if we don’t look into that, and I think that as this committee, I

don’t want to acquiesce that. We should look at it. If there are

some things that aren’t being good, it is our job to point it out and

do something about it. And I hope that we will do that.

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you.

Chairman GORDON. And so all in favor say aye. Opposed. The

ayes have it.

Are there other amendments? If not then the vote is on the bill,

H.R. 364 as amended. All in favor will say aye. All opposed no. In

the opinion of the Chair the ayes have it.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman. I would ask for a recorded vote.

Chairman GORDON. The gentleman from Texas asks for a recorded vote.

Chairman GORDON. The Clerk will read the vote, read 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.

186

Ms. JOHNSON. Aye.

The CLERK. Ms. Johnson votes aye. Ms. Woolsey.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Aye.

The CLERK. Ms. Woolsey votes ayes. Mr. Udall.

[No response]

The CLERK. Mr. Wu.

Mr. WU. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Wu votes aye. Mr. Baird.

Mr. BAIRD. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Baird votes aye. Mr. Miller.

Mr. MILLER. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Miller votes aye. Mr. Lipinski.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Lipinski votes aye. Mr. Lampson.

Mr. LAMPSON. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Lampson votes aye. Ms. Giffords.

Ms. GIFFORDS. Aye.

The CLERK. Ms. Giffords votes aye. Mr. McNerney.

Mr. MCNERNEY. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. McNerney votes aye. Mr. Kanjorski.

[No response]

The CLERK. Ms. Hooley.

Ms. HOOLEY. Aye.

The CLERK. Ms. Hooley votes aye. Mr. Rothman.

Mr. ROTHMAN. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Rothman votes aye. Mr. Honda.

[No response]

The CLERK. Mr. Matheson.

Mr. MATHESON. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Matheson votes aye. Mr. Ross.

Mr. ROSS. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Ross 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. Melancon.

Mr. MELANCON. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Melancon 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.

Mr. WILSON. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Wilson 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. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye. Mr. Bartlett.

Mr. BARTLETT. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Bartlett votes aye. Mr. Ehlers.

187

Mr. EHLERS. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers votes aye. Mr. Lucas.

Mr. LUCAS. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Lucas votes no. Mrs. Biggert.

Ms. BIGGERT. No.

The CLERK. Mrs. Biggert votes no. Mr. Akin.

Mr. AKIN. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Akin votes no. Mr. Bonner.

Mr. BONNER. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Bonner votes no. Mr. Feeney.

Mr. FEENEY. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Feeney votes no. Mr. Neugebauer.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer votes no. Mr. Inglis.

Mr. INGLIS. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis votes aye. Mr. Reichert.

Mr. REICHERT. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Reichert votes no. Mr. McCaul.

Mr. MCCAUL. No.

The CLERK. Mr. McCaul votes no. Mr. Diaz-Balart.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Diaz-Balart votes no. Mr. Gingrey.

Mr. GINGREY. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Gingrey votes no. Mr. Bilbray.

[No response]

The CLERK. Mr. Adrian Smith.

Mr. SMITH OF NEBRASKA. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Adrian Smith votes no.

Chairman GORDON. Are there others Members that were not recorded?

If not, the Clerk will report the vote.

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, 25 Members vote aye, and 12 Members vote no.

188

189

Chairman GORDON. The bill passes. Mr. Hall is recognized.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the way you

have conducted this. As the gentleman, Dr. Gingrey said, we can

count, and we can count each of these times, and actually about the

only excitement we have had here today is when Ms. Deborah

would call for the gentleman from Louisiana to vote.

But we like the direction we are going. We don’t like the fact

that you have another agency, the money spending, but we thank

you for your courtesy and your generosity in the way you handle

the gavel.

Yield back.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Hall. I wish this could have

been a unanimous vote, but it was a unanimous work in that both

at the Subcommittee level, working together all through. I think

that we have a better bill, and I am glad it is a bipartisan bill, and

I want Dr. Ehlers and anyone else to know that we will continue

our conversation to have the very best bill we can through going

to the Floor and going through conference.

I now recognize Mr. Lampson to offer a motion.

Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee favorably report H.R. 364 as amended to the House with the recommendation that the bill do pass.

Furthermore, I move that the staff be instructed to prepare the

legislative report and make the necessary technical and conforming

changes and that the Chairman take all necessary steps to bring

the bill before the House for consideration.

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

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

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

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

I move that Members have two subsequent calendar days in which

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

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

of Representatives that the Committee authorize the Chairman to

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

pass H.R. 364, To provide for the establishment of Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy, as amended.

Without objection, so ordered. And once again, I want to thank

the Members for your patience. I know there are lots of markups

going on. We have three more bills which I hope will be unanimous, and we will now proceed to those.

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

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

(191)

Appendix:

SUBCOMMITTEE MARKUP REPORT, H.R. 364, AS REPORTED BY THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, AMENDMENT

ROSTER

192

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

REPORT FROM SUBCOMMITTEE MARKUP

MAY 10, 2007

H.R. 364, To provide for the establishment of the Advanced

Research Projects Agency–Energy

I. Purpose

The purpose of the bill is to establish within the Department of Energy, the Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA–E), and set up an Energy Independence Acceleration Fund to conduct activities under the Act.

II. Background and Need for Legislation

H.R. 364 follows on the recommendation of the National Academies 2005 report,

Rising Above the Gathering Storm, also known as the ‘‘Augustine Report’’ for its

Chair, retired Lockheed Martin CEO Norman Augustine. This report called on the

Federal Government to create a new energy research agency within Department of

Energy patterned loosely on the successful Defense Advanced Research Projects

Agency (DARPA) within the Department of Defense. 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 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. ARPA–E

would accelerate the process by which research is transformed to address economic,

environmental, and security issues. 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 primary motivations for establishing an ARPA–E are the need for the U.S.

to obtain more energy from domestic sources, become more energy efficient, and become less reliant on energy sources and technologies that have an adverse effect on

the environment. The push for new technologies is especially urgent given the geopolitical forces that threaten global energy supplies and economic stability, the

looming threat of global climate change, and probable regulation of carbon dioxide

emissions. In addition to addressing the Nation’s energy challenges, the Gathering

Storm report also concluded that ARPA–E will contribute to U.S. competitiveness

by playing an important role in ‘‘advancing research in engineering, the physical

sciences, and mathematics; and in developing the next generation of researchers.’’

While isolated elements in the national labs, industry, and academia have collaborated with varying degrees of success, there is currently no federal program charged

with bringing these elements together and seeding a strong and cohesive domestic

community of researchers and technology developers focused on pushing transformational energy solutions into the marketplace. ARPA–E is intended to play this

critical role.

To pursue truly transformational research ARPA–E will utilize an organizational

structure that is fundamentally different from that of the traditional energy research enterprise. Critics of the Department of Energy’s management of research

programs contend that the stove-piped and bureaucratic structure of DOE is not

conducive to the quick development of cross-cutting energy solutions, or translating

energy research results into commercial technologies. ARPA–E will instead have a

relatively flat and nimble organization, similar to the small, flexible, non-hierarchical reporting structure at DARPA that fostered a successful culture of innovation. Because the director of ARPA–E reports directly to the Secretary of Energy,

it is not beholden to any one particular technology area or research program within

DOE. Furthermore, changes were made in Subcommittee to ensure that no other

programs within DOE report to ARPA–E. These two factors ensure that ARPA–E

has a unique independence within DOE, and does not add another ‘‘layer’’ to the

DOE bureaucracy, especially since bureaucratic impediments are the main thing it

seeks to avoid.

ARPA–E’s unique function is best described as that of a ‘‘marriage broker’’ that

can identify people and capabilities within industry, universities, and the national

labs, and assemble hybrid research teams to quickly develop novel solutions to

pressing energy problems. Key to this function is the Program Manager. As with

DARPA, these individuals would ostensibly be very talented, knowledgeable, experienced in industry or academia, and passionate in pursuit of their mission. Because

193

of the flexible hiring authority that is written into Section 2 of the bill, talented Program Managers can be recruited from a variety of fields, hired for a term of approximately three years, and paid a salary commensurate with what they would make

in the private sector. The initial start-up staff of ARPA–E will be crucial in making

it both successful and distinct from the traditional federal R&D enterprise, and the

Subcommittee added language to further specify their qualifications. To allow

ARPA–E to pursue truly novel technology areas, projects will not undergo the traditional peer-review process which has been criticized as promoting incremental

changes to existing systems. Instead, Program Managers and their superiors are

given extraordinary autonomy and resources to quickly pursue unique technology

pathways, and just as quickly change course or stop research if it does not look

fruitful. This is different from the current DOE model which is criticized for requiring inordinate amounts of time to start up research projects, and then sustaining

support for projects and people beyond a timeframe where meaningful results are

likely.

Language was added in subcommittee to further clarify that ARPA–E is expected

to pursue a ‘‘whatever it takes’’ approach to moving a potentially transformational

technologies from the labs to the marketplace. If adequately funded and directed the

mission-driven ARPA–E will leverage its resources and institutional capabilities to

aggressively engage in basic research into fundamental concepts with possible technology applications, and later-stage technology prototyping and large-scale demonstrations.

Despite the recent attention to energy challenges, R&D investment in energy remains far below the historically high levels of the 1970’s. A recent GAO report commissioned by Chairman Gordon and Congressman Honda noted that ‘‘DOE’s total

budget authority for energy R&D dropped by over 85 percent (in real terms) from

1978 to 2005, peaking in the late 1970’s but falling sharply when oil prices returned

to lower levels in the mid-1980’s.’’ (GAO–07–106) Witnesses at the April 26 Subcommittee hearing all agreed that, for ARPA–E to be successful, the program must

be funded at levels to match the magnitude and complexity of energy challenges,

and the high costs of energy research and technology demonstration. According to

venture capitalist John Denniston: ‘‘. . .federal spending on renewable energy research amounts to little more than $1 billion per year. Frankly, this is inadequate

relative to the scope of our problems, and the sheer size of the energy and transportation industries which amount to over $1.8 trillion annually. We are way off scale.’’

It was suggested in the hearing that no other technology-based industry invests

such a small proportion of revenues in research. By comparison, Mr. Denniston

pointed out that the National Institute of Health receives $28 billion for research

annually, and DARPA itself was initially budgeted for the equivalent of $3.5 billion,

and remains at roughly the same level today.

Investment in ARPA–E should be seen in the context of increasing overall energy

R&D expenditures enough to truly address the challenge. Furthermore, it is not intended for ARPA–E to come from other research accounts within DOE. The Gathering Storm report calls for ARPA–E to be authorized at $300 million in the first

year, and quickly escalate to $1 billion within five years. The Subcommittee changed

the authorization levels to reflect concern on the part of the witnesses and other

outside testimony that the previous authorizations levels were inadequate for the

scale of the challenge. The authorizations now ramp up more quickly to $1 billion

in the second year to allow ARPA–E to be fully operational quickly. Hearing witnesses and others have suggested that the only way a high-cost, risk-tolerant program like ARPA–E would survive is if it has dedicated stream of funding, and therefore would not be subject to annual political/financial pressures and resource fluctuations that stifle innovation.

III. Subcommittee Actions

H.R. 364 was introduced by Chairman Gordon on January 10, 2007, and referred

to the House Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Energy and

Environment. This bill was first introduced as H.R. 4435 in the 109th Congress. In

the 109th Congress the House Committee on Science held a hearing on March 9,

2006 examining the concept of an ARPA–E (HOUSE REPT. 109–39). Several similar

bills calling for an ARPA–E were introduced in the 109th and 110th, in both the

House and Senate (including S. 696 and S. 761, the Senate COMPETES Act).

The Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a hearing on April 26, 2007

to hear testimony on H.R. 364 from the following witnesses:

• Mr. John Denniston—partner in the venture capital firm of Kleiner Perkins

Caufield and Byers, and energy technology investor.

194

• Mr. William Bonvillian—Director of the Washington Office of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and former Senate staff on legislation establishing HS–ARPA at the Department of Homeland Security.

• Dr. Stephen Forrest—Vice President for Research at the University of

Michigan, which recently established the Michigan Memorial Phoenix Energy

Institute.

• Dr. Richard Van Atta—senior researcher at the Science & Technology Policy Institute of the Institute for Defense Analysis, and one of the leading experts on DARPA history.

The Subcommittee on Energy and Environment met to consider H.R. 364 on May

10, 2007 and consider the following amendments to the bill:

1. On behalf of Mr. Lampson, Ms. Giffords, and Mr. Bartlett which adds additional goals for greenhouse gas emissions, efficiency, and economic competitiveness; clarifies reporting structure, personnel responsibilities, activities,

and participants; specifies desired experience of some personnel and limits

terms to three years; specifies coordination and non-duplication with DOE

and other agencies; increases authorization levels; sets guidelines and limits

for funding allocations for demonstration and commercial application, federally funded R&D Centers, overhead expenses, and new construction. The

amendment was agreed to by voice vote.

2. On behalf of Ms. Biggert, Replaces text with directions to DOE and NAS to

study ARPA–E concept and make recommendations on implementation. The

amendment was defeated by voice vote.

Ms. Giffords moved that the Subcommittee favorably report the bill H.R. 364, as

amended, to the Full Committee. The motion was agreed to by voice vote.

IV. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill

H.R. 364 authorizes $6.3 billion for ARPA–E for the fiscal years 2008–2013. The

bill also outlines the organizational structure, hiring practices, goals, and activities

of ARPA–E. The bill specifies that, to the extent practicable, ARPA–E will not duplicate the specific efforts of other research programs, will coordinate with those programs wherever possible, and seek opportunities to demonstrate technologies within

the Federal Government. Specific guidelines are set for the proportion of funds that

may be used for overhead expenses, late-stage demonstration and commercial applications, federally funded research and development centers, and new construction.

After roughly five years of operations ARPA–E will be evaluated by the President’s

Committee on Science and Technology.

V. Section by Section Analysis of the Bill, as reported by the Subcommittee

Section 1.

Findings—The U.S. can meet long-term energy challenges through sustained investment in energy research programs at DOE augmented by an innovative and aggressive new energy technology development effort based on the same operating

principles that make DARPA successful.

Section 2.

Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy—Establishes the Advanced Research

Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA–E) within the Department of Energy. Similar to the

Department of Defense’s Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), this new organizational structure will support revolutionary and transformational energy research where risk and payoffs are high.

The stated goal of ARPA–E is to develop technologies to reduce the dependence

of the U.S. on foreign energy sources, improve energy efficiency of the U.S. economy,

reduce the impact of the energy sector on the environment, and provide for the U.S.

leadership in developing energy technologies. To achieve this ARPA–E will support

targeted high-risk, high pay-off research to accelerate the innovation cycle for both

traditional and alternative energy sources and energy efficiency. ARPA–E shall be

headed by a Director, appointed by the Secretary, who will administer competitive

grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts to universities, industry and consortia

which may include federal labs.

Organization of ARPA–E will be flat and nimble to avoid bureaucratic impediments that stifle innovation today. The Director shall designate program managers

who will have flexibility in establishing R&D goals for the program, publicizing

goals, issuing solicitations and selecting projects, monitoring their progress, and

changing or eliminating projects as needed. Projects will be chosen based on factors

195

such as novelty, scientific and technical merit, applicant’s capabilities and other criteria as the Director determines. ARPA–E will have authority to hire specialized

science and engineering personnel to be program managers. (This is similar to

DARPA and HS–ARPA.)

In addition, the Director shall ensure that ARPA–E’s activities do not duplicate

and are coordinated with other federal research programs, and shall seek opportunities to demonstrate technologies through procurement in the Federal Government.

Section. 3.

Energy Independence Acceleration Fund—Establishes the Energy Independence

Acceleration Fund administered by the Director of ARPA–E. $6.3 billion is authorized for FY 2008 through 2013, to remain available until expended.

Section 4.

Recoupment—The provision allows the Secretary complete flexibility in developing

recoupment agreements, and the ability to waive it entirely if necessary for the commercial viability of a project. All recouped funds will be returned to the Energy

Independence Acceleration Fund.

Section 5.

Advisory Committee—The ARPA–E Advisory Committee may seek advice either

from an existing DOE advisory committee or may establish a new advisory committee. If the Director of ARPA–E requires industry advice, a panel to advise on a

specific technology area, or to hire an outside consultant, this provision provides the

appropriate authorities.

Section 6.

ARPA–E Evaluation—At the end of five and one-half years, the President’s Committee on Science and Technology (PCAST) shall evaluate how well ARPA–E has

performed in achieving its goals and mission. The Committee is required to recommend whether ARPA–E should be continued or terminated as well as lessons

learned from its operation.

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

(231)

PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE

MARKUP ON H.RES. 487, RECOGNIZING THE

CONTRIBUTION OF REMODELING AND SIMULATION TECHNOLOGY TO THE SECURITY

AND PROSPERITY OF THE UNITED STATES,

AND RECOGNIZING MODELING AND SIMULATION AS A NATIONAL CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY

FRIDAY, JUNE 22, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:50 a.m., in Room

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

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.

Chairman GORDON. The Committee will come to order. Pursuant

to notice, the Committee on Science and Technology meets to consider the following measures: H.R. 2698, the Federal Aviation Research and Development Reauthorization Act of 2007; and H.Res.

487, Recognizing the contribution of modeling and simulation technology to the security and prosperity of the United States and recognizing modeling and simulation as a national critical technology,

and let me thank the Members for coming here this morning. We

have lots going on. There will be a vote in about an hour but I

think we can take care of our business with that period. So again,

thank you.

We will now proceed with the markup. Today the Committee is

meeting to mark up two good bipartisan pieces of legislation.

The first bill we will consider today is H.R. 2698, the Federal

Aviation Research and Development Reauthorization Act of 2007,

and H.R. 2698 was introduced by Chairman Udall. The Space and

Aeronautics Subcommittee met last Thursday to consider H.R.

2698 and favorably reported the bill by voice vote without amendment. I want to thank and congratulate the Members of the Subcommittee for their hard work and bipartisan cooperation on this

bill. There are two central features of this legislation before us. The

first is a set of provisions intended to strengthen both the national

authority and the accountability of the Next Generation Air Transportation System Joint Planning and Development Office, JPDO,

because its success or failure is going to determine in large measure whether or not the Nation will have a safe and efficient air

232

traffic management system in the future, and let me just say, this

is a big deal, bigger than we are making it today. It is imperative

that for both the aviation industry as well as our nation at large

that we have this Next Generation air traffic control system and

by and large it is going to be developed by virtue of the R&D we

are going to provide here in the FAA bill as well as in the NASA

bill, so we are going to play a major role, and this is important to

the country.

The second feature is a four-year authorization of FAA’s research

and development activities including the establishment of important new research initiatives on the impact of space weather on

aviation, the impact of aviation on the climate research, runway

materials and engineering materials, restraining systems, among

others. This FAA authorization expires this year. That is why it is

important for us to move forward, and the reason it is important

is that we have the option of going to the conference with Transportation either without a bill or with a bill, and I think by us putting a mark in the sand today, it is going to make us more relevant

in being able to do that. Our friend and colleague, Mr. Costello,

isn’t here but I was hoping he would come so we could give him

a lesson on legislating so that he could get it out of his committee

also. I am sure he will finally get here at which time we will give

him some pointers. But again, this is important. This bill will expire and we have the option of either participating or not participating, and I think we are doing the right thing, and I thank you

for that. So I urge my colleagues to support this very good bipartisan bill.

Today we will also take up H.Res. 487, Recognizing the contribution of modeling and simulation technology to the security and prosperity of the United States and recognizing modeling and simulation as a national critical technology, as well as the thousands of

Americans who work to develop this project. This is an under-appreciated but fundamentally important area of research to our

country and I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Gordon follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BART GORDON

Good morning. Today the Committee is meeting to mark up two good pieces of

legislation that have bipartisan support.

The first bill that we will consider today is H.R. 2698, the Federal Aviation Research and Development Reauthorization Act of 2007.

H.R. 2698 was introduced by Chairman Udall, and I was pleased to be an original

co-sponsor of the legislation.

The Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee met last Thursday to consider H.R.

2698 and favorably reported the bill by voice vote without amendment.

I want to thank and congratulate Members of the Subcommittee for their hard

work and bipartisan cooperation on this bill.

There are two central features to the legislation before us today.

The first is a set of provisions intended to strengthen both the authority and the

accountability of the Next Generation Air Transportation System’s Joint Planning

and Development Office–JPDO—because its success or failure is going to determine

in large measure whether or not the Nation will have a safe and efficient air traffic

management system in the future.

The second feature is a four-year authorization of FAA’s research and development activities, including the establishment of important new research initiatives

on the impact of space weather on aviation, the impact of aviation on the climate,

research on runway materials and engineered materials restraining systems, among

others.

233

I believe each of those new initiatives will better position the FAA to respond to

emerging research challenges.

As I have noted, the focus of today’s markup is FAA’s R&D program and the Next

Generation Air Transportation System initiative.

However, it is clear that FAA cannot ensure the successful development of the

Nation’s future air transportation system on its own.

As the establishment of the interagency JPDO by Congress four years ago indicates, it is going to take the combined efforts of multiple federal agencies, working

in partnership with industry and the academic community, to make the NextGen

initiative a success.

NASA, in particular, has an important R&D role to play, and we will need to ensure that NASA is given the necessary resources to play that role, and—in turn—

that NASA steps up to its responsibilities for conducting needed R&D.

That is something that the Committee will devote more attention to as we start

work on reauthorizing NASA later in this Congress.

For now, however, our focus is on the FAA, and I think that H.R. 2698 is a good

bill that will help ensure that America’s aviation system remains safe and preeminent in the world.

I urge my colleagues to support it.

Today, we will also take up H.Res. 487, Recognizing the contribution of modeling

and simulation technology to the security and prosperity of the United States, and

recognizing modeling and simulation as a National Critical Technology.

Chairman GORDON. I now recognize Mr. Hall to present his opening statement.

Mr. HALL. I thank you, Chairman Gordon, for the chance to

make some opening remarks about today’s markup on H.R. 2698,

the Federal Aviation Research and Development Reauthorization

Act of 2007, and H.Res. 487, recognizing the contribution of modeling and simulation technology to the security and the prosperity

of our country. These are two very important pieces of legislation,

as you pointed out, that have been worked out in a bipartisan fashion. I believe the FAA legislation will do a great deal to improve

research and development in aviation and I am proud that this

committee is advancing this legislation.

I am also very supportive of the resolution co-sponsored by my

good friend, Mr. Feeney, which praises the good work of modeling

and simulation technology.

Mr. Chairman, as always, I look forward to discussing these bills

further we move through the markup today, and I yield back the

balance of my time.

Chairman GORDON. Without objection, Members may now place

statements in the record at this point.

We will now consider H.Res. 487, Recognizing the contribution of

the modeling and simulating technology to the security and prosperity of the United States, and recognizing modeling and simulation as a national critical technology. Just for your information,

this is a bill that Mr. Forbes, the parliamentarian, sent it to our

committee. We feel that it is a good bill but we thought it would

be best to have someone on the Committee that would bring it

forth, so Mr. Feeney has agreed to do that, so we are glad you

could help Mr. Forbes. I now yield five minutes to the gentleman

from Florida to explain the bill.

Mr. FEENEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Does the resolution need

to be read formally before I explain it or should I weigh in?

Chairman GORDON. I think you can cut loose.

Mr. FEENEY. Okay. Great. Well, this morning’s markup of H.Res.

487 recognizes that modeling and simulation technology is a national critical technology essential for American’s long-term naVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:49 Jan 05, 2009 Jkt 037729 PO 00000 Frm 00241 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\110MAR~1\37729\37729.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
234

tional security and economic prosperity. Congressman Randy

Forbes, as Chairman Gordon mentioned, a former Member of this

committee and current Chairman of the Modeling and Simulation

Caucus, introduced this legislation. I, as a member of that caucus

and representing one of the larger modeling and simulation clusters in the United States, am honored to urge this committee to

pass this legislation.

Your child’s or grandchild’s video game represents one product of

the modeling and simulation industry. Aircraft training simulators

provide another well-known example. I don’t know if Ranking

Member Ralph Hall used the link trainer as he prepared for World

War II service but that rather rudimentary flight simulator helped

train a generation of military pilots and laid the foundation for this

important technology. Simulation uses combinations of sound, sight

and motion to make you feel that you are experiencing an actual

event. Modeling involves the complex computer models used to create these artificial environments. For training purposes, modeling

and simulation places people in an artificial but seemingly real environment and puts them through their paces. But unlike live

training, if you make a mistake, you get to live another day and

learn valuable lessons. An inestimable number of lives have been

saved that otherwise might have been lost in training accidents

while improving the overall quality of training. In the latter part

of the 20th century, the U.S. military revolutionalized war fighting

by emphasizing high-fidelity training that simulates the stress and

decision-making of actual combat. Servicemen and women gain experience and judgment previously only earned on the actual battlefield. Substantial amounts of that simulation and training come

from my Congressional district where representatives of all service

branches collaborate. By the way, it is the oldest joint military facility in the country with the University of Central Florida and private contractors of all sizes producing these training systems.

Other clusters of modeling and simulation excellence exist

throughout the United States but such training expands far beyond

military uses. Medical simulation is an especially promising field.

By creating artificial but seemingly real environments, doctors and

nurses can hone their skills in using sophisticated and invasive

medical technology or in treating severely injured patients.

Beyond training, modeling and simulation replicates complex environments, allowing planners and designers to ask various ‘‘what

if’’ questions. Transportation planners simulate highway networks

to determine how to best alleviate congestion. The Illinois State

Toll Highway Authority uses simulation to determine how to improve highway signage and reduce crashes near toll plazas. Emergency management experts simulate large-scale natural or manmade disasters to better improve coordinated emergency responses.

Hurricane Katrina highlighted the need to better utilize modeling

and simulation in order to protect life and property. Because of

these growing numbers of uses, the modeling and simulation industry is a rapidly growing industry that demands the best students

with extensive math and science backgrounds including psychology,

medicine, computer science, mathematics, engineering and physics.

In these brief remarks, I have used examples of modeling and

simulation technology to illustrate its value in our complex and dyVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:49 Jan 05, 2009 Jkt 037729 PO 00000 Frm 00242 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\110MAR~1\37729\37729.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
235

namic world. I urge all my colleagues to support this resolution

that recognizes the national critical technology and urges government action in the areas of industry classification codes and intellectual property to strengthen America’s lead in this technology.

I want to thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member and

would yield back the balance of my time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Feeney follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE TOM FEENEY

This morning’s markup of H.Res. 487 recognizes that modeling and simulation

technology is a National Critical Technology essential for America’s long-term national security and economic prosperity.

Congressman Randy Forbes—a former Member of this committee and current

Chairman of the Modeling and Simulation Caucus—introduced this legislation. I—

as a member of that caucus and representing one of the larger modeling and simulation clusters in the United States—am honored to urge that this committee pass

this legislation.

Your child’s or grandchild’s video game represents one product of the modeling

and simulation industry. Aircraft training simulators provide another well-known

example.

I don’t know if Ranking Member Ralph Hall used the Link Trainer as he prepared

for World War II service, but that rather rudimentary flight simulator helped train

a generation of military pilots and laid the foundation for this technology.

Simulation uses combinations of sound, sight, and motion to make you feel that

you are experiencing an actual event. Modeling involves the complex computer models used to create these artificial environments.

For training purposes, modeling and simulation places people in an artificial—but

seemingly real—environment and puts them through their paces. But unlike ‘‘live’’

training, if you make a mistake, you get to live another day and learn valuable lessons. An inestimable number of lives have been saved that otherwise might have

been lost in training accidents while improving the overall quality of training.

In the later part of the 20th Century, the U.S. military revolutionized war-fighting by emphasizing high-fidelity training that simulates the stress and decisionmaking of actual combat. Servicemen and women gain experience and judgment

previously only earned on the actual battlefield.

Substantial amounts of that simulation and training came from my Congressional

District where representatives of all service branches collaborate with the University of Central Florida and private contractors of all sizes to produce these training

systems. Other clusters of modeling and simulation excellence exist throughout the

United States.

But such training expands far beyond military uses. Medical simulation is an especially promising field. By creating artificial but seemingly real environments, doctors and nurses can hone their skills in using sophisticated and invasive medical

technology or in treating severely injured patients.

Beyond training, modeling and simulation replicates complex environments—allowing planners and designers to ask various ‘‘what if’’ questions. Transportation

planners simulate highway networks to determine how to best alleviate congestion.

The Illinois State Toll Highway Authority uses simulation to determine how to improve highway signage and reduce crashes near toll plazas.

Emergency management experts simulate large scale natural or man-made disasters to better improve coordinated emergency responses. Hurricane Katrina highlighted the need to better utilize modeling and simulation in order to protect life

and property.

Because of these growing number of uses, the modeling and simulation industry

is rapidly growing and demands the best of students with extensive math and

science backgrounds including psychology, medicine, computer science, mathematics,

engineering and physics.

In these brief remarks, I’ve used examples of modeling and simulation technology

to illustrate its value in our complex and dynamic world. So I urge you to support

this resolution that recognizes this National Critical Technology and urges governmental action in the areas of industry classification codes and intellectual property

to strengthen America’s lead in this technology.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Feeney, for that good explanation.

236

Mr. Hall, did you have anything you would like to add?

Mr. HALL. I think it is very good legislation and I appreciate the

gentleman’s time and your cooperation. I yield back.

Chairman GORDON. Does anyone else wish to be recognized?

Mr. McNerney.

Mr. MCNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to strike the last

word.

Chairman GORDON. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

Mr. MCNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I spent most of my professional

career in modeling and simulation and I can tell you that it is a

great activity. It is exciting and it allows scientists to reach in and

see what is going on in very remote processes. It allows developers

to understand what is going on with their products. It allows industry a lot of leeway in terms of expenditures. It is a great tool

and the Americans are in the lead in this tool. We need to acknowledge that lead. We need to nurture and stimulate, shall I say,

growth of that industry in our country. It also allows our military

to understand the impacts of their weapons and it is a terrific tool

that will allow us to maintain our lead in the world in many, many

fields. So I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. McNerney.

Any other comments? If not, let me just—in conclusion, let me

say I think this really is a good example of what I hope this committee will be known for, and that is a committee of good ideas and

consensus. This bill didn’t originate from any Member of this committee and so let the word go out if we have colleagues, Democrats,

Republicans that have good ideas and the jurisdiction is here that

we want them to bring them forth and they will be treated fairly.

So now I ask unanimous consent that the resolution is considered as read and open at any point and that the Members proceed

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

ordered.

I assume there are no amendments. Without any amendments

then, the vote is on H. Resolution 487. All those in favor say aye.

Opposed, no. The ayes have it. I recognize Mr. Hall to offer a motion.

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

report House Resolution 487 to the House with the recommendation that the bill do pass. Furthermore, I move that the staff be instructed to make necessary technical and conforming changes and

that the Chairman take all necessary steps to bring the resolution

before the House for consideration, and I yield back my time.

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

resolution favorably. Those in favor of the motion will signify by

saying aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it and the resolution is favorably reported.

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

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

of Representatives that the Committee authorize the Chairman to

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

pass H.Res. 487, Recognizing the contribution of modeling and simulation technology to the security and prosperity of the United

237

States, and recognizing modeling and simulation as a national critical technology. Without objection, so ordered.

And now let me thank the Members for one more constructive

markup, and the Committee is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

(239)

Appendix:

H.RES. 487

240

241

242

243

244

245

(246)

247

GREEN CHEMISTRY RESEARCH AND

DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2007

——————

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

Technology, submitted the following:

R E P O R T

[To accompany H.R. 2850]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Science and Technology, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 2850) to provide for the implementation of a

Green Chemistry Research and Development Program, and for

other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably

thereon with an amendment and recommends that the bill as

amended do pass.

CONTENTS

Page

I. Amendment ............................................................................................ 248

II. Purpose of the Bill ................................................................................. 251

III. Background and Need for the Legislation ........................................... 251

IV. Committee Actions ................................................................................. 254

V. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill, as Reported ...................... 254

VI. Section-by-Section Analysis (by Title and Section), as Reported ....... 255

VII. Committee View ..................................................................................... 256

VIII. Cost Estimate ......................................................................................... 258

IX. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ........................................ 258

X. Compliance with Public Law 104–4 ..................................................... 260

XI. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations ...................... 260

XII. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives ................. 260

XIII. Constitutional Authority Statement .................................................... 261

XIV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement .............................................. 261

XV. Congressional Accountability Act ......................................................... 261

XVI. Earmark Identification .......................................................................... 261

XVII. Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law .................. 261

XVIII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported .................. 261

XIX. Committee Recommendations ............................................................... 262

XX. Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup ........................................ 263

248

I. AMENDMENT

The amendment is as follows:

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Green Chemistry Research and Development Act

of 2007’’.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act—

(1) the term ‘‘green chemistry’’ means chemistry and chemical engineering

to design chemical products and processes that reduce or eliminate the use or

generation of hazardous substances while producing high quality products

through safe and efficient manufacturing processes;

(2) the term ‘‘Interagency Working Group’’ means the interagency working

group established under section 3(c); and

(3) the term ‘‘Program’’ means the Green Chemistry Research and Development Program described in section 3.

SEC. 3. GREEN CHEMISTRY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The President shall establish a Green Chemistry Research

and Development Program to promote and coordinate federal green chemistry research, development, demonstration, education, and technology transfer activities.

(b) PROGRAM ACTIVITIES.—The activities of the Program shall be designed to—

(1) provide sustained support for green chemistry research, development,demonstration, education, and technology transfer through—

(A) merit-reviewed competitive grants to individual investigators and

teams of investigators, including, to the extent practicable, young investigators, for research and development;

(B) grants to fund collaborative research and development partnerships

among universities, industry, and nonprofit organizations;

(C) green chemistry research, development, demonstration, and technology transfer conducted at federal laboratories; and

(D) to the extent practicable, encouragement of consideration of green

chemistry in—

(i) the conduct of federal chemical science and engineering research

and development; and

(ii) the solicitation and evaluation of all proposals for chemical

science and engineering research and development;

(2) examine methods by which the Federal Government can create incentives for consideration and use of green chemistry processes and products;

(3) facilitate the adoption of green chemistry innovations;

(4) expand education and training of undergraduate and graduate students,

and professional chemists and chemical engineers, including through partnerships with industry, in green chemistry science and engineering;

(5) collect and disseminate information on green chemistry research, development, and technology transfer, including information on—

(A) incentives and impediments to development and commercialization;

(B) accomplishments;

(C) best practices; and

(D) costs and benefits;

(6) provide venues for outreach and dissemination of green chemistry advances such as symposia, forums, conferences, and written materials in collaboration with, as appropriate, industry, academia, scientific and professional societies, and other relevant groups;

(7) support economic, legal, and other appropriate social science research to

identify barriers to commercialization and methods to advance commercialization of green chemistry; and

(8) provide for public input and outreach to be integrated into the Program

by the convening of public discussions, through mechanisms such as citizen panels, consensus conferences, and educational events, as appropriate.

(c) INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP.—The President shall establish an Interagency Working Group, which shall include representatives from the National

Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and any other agency

that the President may designate. The Director of the National Science Foundation

249

and the Assistant Administrator for Research and Development of the Environmental Protection Agency shall serve as co-chairs of the Interagency Working

Group. The Interagency Working Group shall oversee the planning, management,

and coordination of the Program. The Interagency Working Group shall—

(1) establish goals and priorities for the Program, to the extent practicable

in consultation with green chemistry researchers and potential end-users of

green chemistry products and processes; and

(2) provide for interagency coordination, including budget coordination, of

activities under the Program.

(d) AGENCY BUDGET REQUESTS.—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 identifies its activities that contribute directly to the Program and

states the portion of its request for appropriations that is allocated to those activities. The President shall include in his annual budget request to Congress a statement of the portion of each agency’s or department’s annual budget request allocated to its activities undertaken pursuant to the Program.

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

of this Act, the Interagency Working Group shall transmit 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. This report shall

include—

(1) a summary of federally funded green chemistry research, development,

demonstration, education, and technology transfer activities, including the

green chemistry budget for each of these activities; and

(2) an analysis of the progress made toward achieving the goals and priorities for the Program, and recommendations for future program activities.

SEC. 4. MANUFACTURING EXTENSION CENTER GREEN SUPPLIERS

NETWORK GRANT PROGRAM.

Section 25(a) of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15

U.S.C. 278k(a) ) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (4);

(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (5) and inserting ‘‘; and’’;

and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(6) the enabling of supply chain manufacturers to continuously improve

products and processes, increase energy efficiency, increase recycling, identify

cost-saving opportunities, and optimize resources and technologies with the aim

of reducing or eliminating the use or generation of hazardous substances.’’

SEC. 5. UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION IN CHEMISTRY AND CHEMICAL

ENGINEERING.

(a) PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.—(1) As part of the Program activities under section

3(b)(4), the Director of the National Science Foundation shall carry out a program

to award grants to institutions of higher education to support efforts by such institutions to revise their undergraduate curriculum in chemistry and chemical engineering to incorporate green chemistry concepts and strategies.

(1) Grants shall be awarded under this section on a competitive, merit-reviewed

basis and shall require cost sharing in cash from non-federal sources, to match the

federal funding.

(b) SELECTION PROCESS.—(1) An institution of higher education seeking funding

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. Minority

Serving Institutions shall receive due consideration for such funding. The application shall include at a minimum—

(A) a description of the content and schedule for adoption of the proposed

curricular revisions to the courses of study offered by the applicant in chemistry

and chemical engineering; and

(B) a description of the source and amount of cost sharing to be provided.

(2) In evaluating the applications submitted under paragraph (1), the Director

shall consider, at a minimum—

(A) the level of commitment demonstrated by the applicant in carrying out

and sustaining lasting curriculum changes in accordance with subsection (a)(1);

and

(B) the amount of cost sharing to be provided.

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—In addition to amounts authorized

under section 8, from sums otherwise authorized to be appropriated by the National

250

Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002, there are authorized to be appropriated to the National Science Foundation for carrying out this section $7,000,000

for fiscal year 2008, $7,500,000 for fiscal year 2009, and $8,000,000 for fiscal year

2010.

SEC. 6. STUDY ON COMMERCIALIZATION OF GREEN CHEMISTRY.

(a) STUDY.—The Director of the National Science Foundation shall enter into an

arrangement with the National Research Council to conduct a study of the factors

that constitute barriers to the successful commercial application of promising results

from green chemistry research and development.

(b) CONTENTS.—The study shall—

(1) examine successful and unsuccessful attempts at commercialization of

green chemistry in the United States and abroad; and

(2) recommend research areas and priorities and public policy options that

would help to overcome identified barriers to commercialization.

(c) REPORT.—The Director shall submit 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 on the findings and recommendations of

the study within 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 7. PARTNERSHIPS IN GREEN CHEMISTRY.

(a) PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.—(1) The agencies participating in the Program shall

carry out a joint, coordinated program to award grants to institutions of higher education to establish partnerships with companies in the chemical industry to retrain

chemists and chemical engineers in the use of green chemistry concepts and strategies.

(2) Grants shall be awarded under this section on a competitive, merit-reviewed

basis and shall require cost sharing from non-federal sources by members of the

partnerships.

(3) In order to be eligible to receive a grant under this section, an institution

of higher education shall enter into a partnership with two or more companies in

the chemical industry. Such partnerships may also include other institutions of

higher education and professional associations.

(4) Grants awarded under this section shall be used for activities to provide retraining for chemists or chemical engineers in green chemistry, including—

(A) the development of curricular materials and the designing of undergraduate and graduate level courses; and

(B) publicizing the availability of professional development courses of study

in green chemistry and recruiting graduate scientists and engineers to pursue

such courses.

Grants may provide stipends for individuals enrolled in courses developed by the

partnership.

(b) SELECTION PROCESS.—(1) An institution of higher education seeking funding

under this section shall submit an application at such time, in such manner, and

containing such information as shall be specified by the Interagency Working Group

and published in a proposal solicitation for the Program. The application shall include at a minimum—

(A) a description of the partnership and the role each member will play in

implementing the proposal;

(B) a description of the courses of study that will be provided;

(C) a description of the number and size of stipends, if offered;

(D) a description of the source and amount of cost sharing to be provided;

and

(E) a description of the manner in which the partnership will be continued

after assistance under this section ends.

(2) The evaluation of the applications submitted under paragraph (1) shall be

carried out in accordance with procedures developed by the Interagency Working

Group and shall consider, at a minimum—

(A) the ability of the partnership to carry out effectively the proposed activities;

(B) the degree to which such activities are likely to prepare chemists and

chemical engineers sufficiently to be competent to apply green chemistry concepts and strategies in their work; and

(C) the amount of cost sharing to be provided.

SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION.—There are authorized to be appropriated

to the National Science Foundation for carrying out this Act—

(1) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;

251

(2) $21,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; and

(3) $22,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.

(b) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the National Institute of Standards and Technology for

carrying out this Act— (1) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;

(2) $9,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; and

(3) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.

(c) DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the

Department of Energy for carrying out this Act— (1) $13,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;

(2) $14,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; and

(3) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.

(d) ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Environmental Protection Agency for carrying out this Act— (1) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;

(2) $11,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; and

(3) $12,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.

II. PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of the H.R. 2850 is to provide for the implementation of a Green Chemistry Research and Development Program.

III. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

Chemical manufacturing, although a necessary part of our economy, can result in harm to human health and the environment due

to the usage of hazardous materials and the generation of hazardous byproducts. Green chemistry seeks to mitigate such harmful

outcomes. In short, the goal of green chemistry is to minimize or,

ideally, to eliminate this harm by using safer materials and manufacturing processes.

By considering chemical hazards in the design of products and

processes, chemists can design chemicals to be safe, just as they

can design them to have other properties. One example of green

chemistry was the development of pesticide alternatives that are

effective at killing target organisms, but are benign to non-target

organisms and do not persist in the environment. Another example

of successful green chemistry is the use of a benign solvent, supercritical carbon dioxide, in dry cleaning processes instead of toxic

perchloroethylene (PERC).

Besides protecting human health and the environment, green

chemistry can offer economic advantages and improvements to

worker safety, public safety, and national security. However, significant impediments exist that discourage businesses from pursuing such alternatives, such as a workforce unfamiliar with green

chemistry, lack of existing green chemistry alternatives, lack of

demonstrated green chemistry alternatives, costs of up-front capital

investment, lack of regulatory drivers, and inertia.

CURRENT PRIVATE SECTOR EFFORTS IN GREEN CHEMISTRY

A number of companies have undertaken green chemistry

projects on their own. The Federal Government has highlighted

some of these efforts through programs such as EPA’s Presidential

Green Chemistry Challenge Awards Program. A number of companies are also acting to increase their usage of more environmentally friendly ingredients to avoid costs associated with handling or treating more hazardous substances and in response to

consumer demand for more environmentally friendly products. For

252

example in 2001, U.S.-based global consumer products manufacturer and marketer S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. developed a process

called Greenlist to formalize the classification of raw materials

used in its products according to the impact they have on the environment and human health. Greenlist provides ratings for more

than 95 percent of raw materials used by the company, including

surfactants, solvents, propellants, insecticides, and packaging.

Through the Greenlist process, each raw material ingredient receives a rating from 3 to 0. An ingredient with a 3 rating is considered ‘‘Best,’’ 2 is ‘‘Better,’’ and 1 is ‘‘Acceptable.’’ 0-rated materials

may be used only when an acceptable alternative is not available

and requires approval by senior management. When S.C. Johnson

scientists create a new product or reformulate existing products,

they work to select raw materials rated ‘‘Better’’ or ‘‘Best.’’ Thus,

Greenlist is a continual improvement process that increases the

company’s use of environmentally preferred raw materials in its

products.

CURRENT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GREEN CHEMISTRY RELATED

ACTIVITIES

The Federal Government supports activities related to green

chemistry through agencies including the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Institute of Standards

and Technology (NIST). Some agencies, such as EPA, run programs

that are focused directly on green chemistry. Other agencies, such

as DOE, fund green chemistry as byproducts of efforts to achieve

other goals, such as improving energy efficiency. Because some

green chemistry investments are direct and some are indirect, and

because green chemistry is not broken out in agency budgets, it is

difficult to determine the precise level of federal investment in

green chemistry.

It is clear, however, that the investment in green chemistry and

chemical engineering is small compared to the investment in chemistry and chemical engineering as a whole. In 2000, the four agencies mentioned above spent approximately $540 million on chemistry and chemical engineering research and development (R&D);

investment in green chemistry R&D was probably close to $40 million. In addition, green chemistry activities are not fully coordinated among the federal agencies.

EPA supports both green chemistry R&D and outreach efforts to

promote green chemistry. The R&D is funded through the Office of

Research and Development; the outreach and promotion through

the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxic Substances (OPPTS).

In fiscal year 2004 (FY04), EPA spent approximately $5 million

directly on green chemistry and chemical engineering R&D and approximately $2 million on other green chemistry activities. The

R&D funding was split between internal R&D, conducted at EPA’s

lab in Cincinnati and external R&D through the Science to Achieve

Results (STAR) program. As part of the STAR program, EPA and

NSF developed a partnership, the Technologies for a Sustainable

Environment (TSE) program, which primarily funded green chemistry and chemical engineering R&D. The other $2 million in funding for green chemistry activities supported green chemistry outVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:28 Jan 05, 2009 Jkt 037729 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\110MAR~1\37729\37729A.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
253

reach programs such as the Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Award Program.

The TSE program was the external R&D program most focused

on green chemistry in the Federal Government. EPA and NSF put

out a joint request for proposals, and then each agency awarded

grants based on its own mission. NSF funded more basic green

chemistry R&D, while EPA funded more applied R&D. TSE was

initiated in 1995, and the last TSE solicitation was issued in 2003.

Through 2003, EPA and NSF awarded over $57 million for 205 research projects under the TSE program.

However, the Administration has eliminated EPA funding for

TSE. The result has been a large decrease in the amount of funding EPA spends on green chemistry activities. Because EPA discontinued funding for the TSE program, NSF has also virtually eliminated specific funding for the TSE program which was NSF’s only

explicit green chemistry funding opportunity. While NSF does not

put out specific solicitations for green chemistry R&D, NSF funds

a wide range of research in green chemistry R&D.

DOE does not track spending on green chemistry activities, and

does not conduct activities that it specifically identifies as green

chemistry. However, DOE conducts R&D that has many green

chemistry applications. DOE’s fundamental research efforts in

chemistry are focused on attaining an atomic and molecular level

understanding of processes involved in the generation, storage, and

use of energy.

NIST has no programs specifically focused on green chemistry

but conducts R&D with implications for, and application to, green

chemistry. For example, the Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory produces more accurate measurement methods and standards to enable the development and implementation of green technologies and assess their impact.

H.R. 2850

H.R. 2850 is designed to focus and integrate the Federal Government’s green chemistry R&D activities, and to make them a higher

priority. The legislation is also designed to increase education and

training in green chemistry.

One impediment to the application of green chemistry is the lack

of a chemistry workforce that is skilled in green chemistry techniques. H.R. 2850 would support undergraduate and graduate education in green chemistry. This should help create a new generation of chemists and chemical engineers who are familiar with

green chemistry and its advantages, and can bring those skills to

bear in the workplace. The Act would also support continuing education for professional chemists and chemical engineers so that the

large existing workforce can be trained in green chemistry techniques.

The coordinated R&D program would also support R&D and

demonstration projects at universities, industry and federal labs.

This includes industry-university partnerships to facilitate the

transfer of new ideas to industry. In addition, H.R. 2850 makes information about green chemistry activities readily available

through a green chemistry database of accomplishments and best

practices. This should aid interested companies in learning about,

254

overcoming barriers to, and implementing green chemistry alternatives.

IV. COMMITTEE ACTIONS

110th CONGRESS

On June 10, 2007, Mr. Gingrey introduced H.R. 2850, the Green

Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2007, along with Mr.

Mario Diaz-Balart, Mr. Wu, Mr. Ehlers, and Mr. Welch. H.R. 2850,

as introduced, was substantially the same as the bills introduced

and passed by the Committee in the previous two Congresses: H.R.

1215 (Report 109–82) in the 109th Congress and H.R. 3970 (Report

108–462) in the 108th Congress. The major change to the legislation is an increase in funding levels for the agencies responsible for

carrying out the legislation.

On July 11, 2007, the Committee on Science and Technology met

to consider H.R. 2850. The Committee considered the following

amendments to the bill:

1. Mr. Lipinski offered an amendment to expand the activities

in the Manufacturing Extension Program with the aim of

reducing the use or generation of hazardous substances to

include recycling. The amendment was agreed to by voice

vote.

2. Ms. Johnson offered an amendment to ensure that Minority

Serving Institutions receive consideration for funds available under the act for green chemistry instruction. The

amendment was agreed to by voice vote.

The legislation was agreed to by a voice vote. Mr. Hall moved

that the Committee favorably report the bill, H.R. 2850, as amended, to the House with the recommendation that the bill, as amended, do pass, and that the staff be instructed to make technical and

conforming changes to the bill, as amended, and prepare the legislative report, and that the Chairman take all necessary steps to

bring the bill before the House for consideration. The motion was

agreed to by a voice vote.

V. SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE BILL, AS REPORTED

The major provisions of the legislation are:

Establishes an interagency research and development (R&D) program to promote and coordinate federal green chemistry research,

development, demonstration, education, and technology transfer activities.

Establishes an interagency working group composed of representatives from the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National

Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), the Department of

Energy (DOE), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and

any other agency that the President may designate, to oversee the

planning, management, and coordination of all federal green chemistry R&D activities. Designates the Director of NSF and the Assistant Administrator for Research and Development at EPA as cochairs.

Requires the interagency working group to report to Congress

within two years of enactment, summarizing federally-funded

255

green chemistry research and development activities and progress

made toward the goals and priorities of the program, as established

by the working group.

Amends the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act

to make eligible as a Manufacturing Extension Program activity

the enabling of supply chain manufacturers to conduct activities

with the aim of reducing or eliminating the use or generation of

hazardous substances.

Authorizes a program at NSF to award grants to institutions of

higher education to support efforts to revise their undergraduate

curriculum in chemistry and chemical engineering to incorporate

green chemistry concepts and strategies. This program is authorized at $22.5 million total over three years, FY08 through FY10.

Requires the Director of NSF to enter into a contract with the

National Research Council to conduct a study of the factors that

constitute barriers to the successful commercial application of

green chemistry R&D.

Authorizes a program to award grants to institutions of higher

education to establish partnerships with companies in the chemical

industry to retrain chemists and chemical engineers in the use of

green chemistry concepts and strategies.

Authorizes appropriations from sums otherwise authorized to be

appropriated for NSF, NIST, DOE and EPA. Total authorizations

are $51 million in FY08, $55 million in FY09, and $59 million in

FY10.

VI. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1: Short Title

‘‘Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2007’’

Section 2: Definitions

Defines terms used in the text including green chemistry, interagency working

group, and program.

Section 3: Green Chemistry Research and Development Program

This section directs the President to establish an interagency research and development (R&D) program to promote and coordinate federal green chemistry research,

development, demonstration, education, and technology transfer activities. The program will provide sustained support for green chemistry R&D through merit-reviewed competitive grants, R&D partnerships of universities, industry, and nonprofit organizations, and through R&D conducted at federal laboratories.

The program will provide support for, and encouragement of, the application of

green chemistry through encouragement of, the application of green chemistry in all

federally funded chemical science and engineering R&D; examination of methods to

create incentives for the use of green chemistry; promotion of the education and

training of undergraduate and graduate students and professional chemists and

chemical engineers in green chemistry; collection and dissemination of information

on green chemistry R&D and technology transfer; and provision of venues of outreach and dissemination of green chemistry advances such as symposia, forums,

conferences, and written materials.

Establishes an interagency working group composed of representatives from the

National Science Foundation, the National Institute for Standards and Technology,

the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and any other

agency that the President may designate, to oversee the planning, management, and

coordination of all federal green chemistry R&D activities.

Names the Director of the National Science Foundation and the Assistant Administrator for R&D at the Environmental Protection Agency as co-chairs and requires

the group to establish goals and priorities for the program and provide for interVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:28 Jan 05, 2009 Jkt 037729 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\110MAR~1\37729\37729A.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
256

agency coordination, including budget coordination. Requires the group to submit 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 within

two years of the enactment of this legislation that includes a summary of the

progress made towards the goals and priorities established for the program, including recommendations for future program activities.

Section 4: Manufacturing Extension Center Green Suppliers Network Grant

Program

Amends the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act to make eligible

as a Manufacturing Extension Program activity with the enabling of supply chain

manufactures to conduct activities with the aim of reducing or eliminating the use

or generation of hazardous substances.

Section 5: Undergraduate Education in Chemistry and Chemical Engineering

This section enables the Director of the National Science Foundation to award

grants to institutions of higher learning, including Minority Serving Institutions, to

revise undergraduate curriculum in chemistry and chemical engineering to incorporate green chemistry concepts and strategies.

Section 6: Study on the Commercialization of Green Chemistry

This section calls for the Director of the National Science Foundation to conduct

a study with the National Research Council to examine the barriers to the successful commercial application of promising results from green chemistry research and

development.

Section 7: Partnerships in Green Chemistry

This section establishes a program to award grants to institutions of higher education to create partnerships with companies in the chemical industry to retrain

chemists and chemical engineers in the use of green chemistry concepts and strategies.

Section 8: Authorization of Appropriations

Authorizes appropriations for green chemistry R&D programs from sums already

authorized to be appropriated, for the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

VII. COMMITTEE VIEW

The Committee expects NSF, EPA, DOE and NIST to give more

focused attention to green chemistry. That means running programs that are specifically targeted at funding green chemistry

R&D, education, and technology transfer, not just funding such

work as an afterthought or as a byproduct of other efforts, or if proposals related to green chemistry happen to be submitted by researchers. The Committee is disappointed that the Administration

terminated the EPA–NSF Technologies for a Sustainable Environment (TSE) program in 2004. This was the only explicit green

chemistry R&D program. The program should be reconstituted.

The Committee also expects the agencies to do a better job of coordinating their efforts in green chemistry so that the Federal GovVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:28 Jan 05, 2009 Jkt 037729 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\110MAR~1\37729\37729A.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
257

ernment has a comprehensive effort in green chemistry that can

meet industry’s needs while drawing on the unique strengths and

expertise of each agency.

The Committee expects the Interagency Working Group to track

Federal expenditures on green chemistry. The legislation requires

agencies and OMB to explicitly state the portion of their request

that will contribute to the activities authorized by this legislation.

The Committee expects this report to reflect an effort to think

through what is specifically needed for green chemistry; it should

not be a mere cobbling together of disparate budgets submitted by

each agency.

The Committee expects that, as part of its coordination efforts,

the Interagency Working Group will identify areas in which green

chemistry could help achieve federal, as well as industry needs. Obvious areas include improving homeland security and the development of non-toxic chemicals to combat invasive species. Clear industry needs include the development of benign solvents or solventless processes for a range of chemical processes, and new materials

for buildings, such as paints and carpets that have lower toxicity.

One way green chemistry R&D programs can help assure both

relevance to, and adoption by, industry is to fund university-industry partnerships, which may also include national laboratories and

other non-profit institutions. Not all green chemistry R&D should

be funded this way, but it should be an emphasis in the R&D programs. The Committee intends that all R&D grants awarded under

this legislation be competitively awarded and merit reviewed.

Beyond operating more specific programs to fund green chemistry activities, the federal agencies should integrate green chemistry techniques in all of their chemistry and chemical engineering

R&D activities. The Committee believes that, when soliciting and

evaluating all chemistry and chemical engineering R&D grant proposals, the agencies should consider whether the application addresses the toxicity of the proposed chemical process and product.

The Committee considers education and outreach activities as essential parts of a comprehensive green chemistry effort. For this

reason, the legislation authorizes two specific education programs—one to update undergraduate chemistry curricula to incorporate green chemistry concepts and strategies and a second to authorize grants for universities that partner with chemical companies to retrain professional chemists and chemical engineers in the

use of green chemistry concepts and strategies. The Interagency

Working Group should make sure that participating agencies are

engaging in these activities, consistent with their overall missions.

Outreach activities should include the creation of an easily accessible one-stop-shop for green chemistry information. Specifically,

the Interagency Working Group may want to consider whether it

would be useful to maintain a list of chemical products and processes that are benign so that a company looking for a green chemistry solution could have easy access to available green chemistry

alternatives.

The Committee believes that there are many barriers to the successful commercialization of green chemistry. For this reason, the

Committee believes that the Interagency Working Group should

fund research to determine economic, legal and other barriers. This

258

is also why the Committee authorizes a National Research Council

study into the barriers to successful commercialization of green

chemistry.

In carrying out its responsibilities, the Interagency Working

Group should consult regularly with a wide range of researchers

and end-users, especially private companies. The Committee also

expects the Interagency Working Group to be able to provide Congress with a clear explanation of the goals and priorities of the

green chemistry program, how each agency’s activities are contributing to those goals, and how achievement of those goals is being

evaluated. An important metric for the program should be whether

new green chemistry products and processes are being developed

and whether they are being adopted by industry.

VIII. 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. 2850 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. 2850 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.

IX. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

SUMMARY

H.R. 2850 would authorize appropriations to promote the development of green chemistry technologies. Green chemistry encourages the design of products and processes that reduce or eliminate

the use or generation of hazardous substances. Activities under the

bill would include the establishment of a Green Chemistry Research and Development Program and the creation of collaborative,

multi-agency grant programs. Assuming appropriation of the authorized and necessary amounts, CBO estimates that implementing

H.R. 2850 would cost $18 million in 2008 and $181 million over the

2008–2012 period. Enacting H.R. 2850 would not affect direct

spending or revenues.

H.R. 2850 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

and would benefit State and local governments.

ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 2850 is shown in the following table. The costs of this legislation fall within budget functions 250 (science, space, and technology) and 800 (general government).

259

BASIS OF ESTIMATE

For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 2850 will be enacted

near the end of fiscal year 2007 and that the entire amounts authorized and estimated to be necessary will be appropriated for

each fiscal year. Estimated outlays are based on historical spending

patterns for similar programs.

Green Chemistry Research and Grant Programs

H.R. 2850 would authorize the appropriation of $58 million in

2008 and about $188 million over the 2008–2010 period to create

multi-agency grant programs for the study of green chemistry.

(Green chemistry encourages the design of products and processes

that reduce or eliminate the use or generation of hazardous substances.) Under the bill, grants would be awarded to investigators

for general research and development, and to universities for establishing partnerships with the chemical industry to retrain chemists

and engineers in the field of green chemistry. The bill would authorize several agency appropriations for those grant and research

activities.

For NSF, H.R. 2850 would authorize the appropriation of between $27 million and $30 million a year over the 2008–2010 period. NSF also would be required to conduct a study on the barriers

to commercial application of green chemistry technologies.

For the other specified agencies, the following amounts would be

authorized to be appropriated over the 2008–2010 period: $27 milVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:28 Jan 05, 2009 Jkt 037729 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\110MAR~1\37729\37729A.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
260

lion for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, $42

million for the Department of Energy, and $33 million for the Environmental Protection Agency to carry out the coordinated grant

programs. Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts for

all agencies, CBO estimates that implementing those provisions

would result in discretionary spending of $18 million in fiscal year

2008 and $181 million over the 2008–2012 period.

Interagency Working Group

H.R. 2850 would establish a Green Chemistry Research and Development Program within the Executive Office of the President

and create an interagency working group to promote and coordinate federal green chemistry research and development. Agencies

participating in the program would report annually on their activities, and the interagency working group would report within two

years to the Congress on the status of green chemistry research.

Based on information from the Office of Management and Budget

and the cost of similar programs, CBO estimates that implementing those provisions would cost $1 million over the 2008–2010

period.

INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND PRIVATE–SECTOR IMPACT

H.R. 2850 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA and would create several grant programs benefiting institutions of higher education. Any costs State,

local, or tribal governments might incur, including matching funds,

would be incurred voluntarily.

ESTIMATE PREPARED BY:

Federal Costs: Science Space and Technology: Leigh Angres;

EPA: Susanne Mehlman; Public Buildings: Matthew Pickford;

NIST: Susan Willie; Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Neil Hood; Impact on the Private Sector: Amy Petz.

ESTIMATE APPROVED BY:

Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis

X. COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4

H.R. 2850 contains no unfunded mandates.

XI. 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.

XII. STATEMENT ON GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause (3)(c) of House Rule XIII, the goal of H.R.

2850 is to advance green chemistry by establishing a green chemistry research and development program and a manufacturing extension center green suppliers network grant program, and by supporting undergraduate education in chemistry and chemical engineering.

261

XIII. CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

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

grants Congress the authority to enact H.R. 2850.

XIV. FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

H.R. 2850 does not establish nor authorize the establishment of

any advisory committee.

XV. CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

The Committee finds that H.R. 2850 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).

XVI. EARMARK IDENTIFICATION

H.R. 2850 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited

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

or 9(f) of Rule XXI.

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

This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local, or tribal

law.

XVIII. 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 italic,

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY ACT

* * * * * * *

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

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; [and]

262

(5) the utilization, when appropriate, of the expertise and capability that exists in federal laboratories other than the Institute[.]; and

(6) the enabling of supply chain manufacturers to continuously

improve products and processes, increase energy efficiency, increase recycling, identify cost-saving opportunities, and optimize

resources and technologies with the aim of reducing or eliminating the use or generation of hazardous substances.

*******

XIX. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

On July 11, 2007, the Committee on Science and Technology favorably reported H.R. 2850, as amended, by a voice vote and recommended its enactment.

263

XX: PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE

MARKUP ON H.R. 2850, THE GREEN CHEMISTRY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT

OF 2007

WEDNESDAY, JULY 11, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:17 a.m., in Room

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

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.

Chairman GORDON. The Committee will come to order. Pursuant

to notice, the Committee on Science and Technology meets to consider the following measures: H.R. 2850, the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2007; and H.R. 2337, the Energy

Policy Reform and Revitalization Act of 2007.

And I would like to briefly talk about H.R. 2337. H.R. 2337 was

referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, the Committee on

Agriculture, and also, the Committee on Science and Technology.

The Natural Resources Committee held hearings on the bill in

May, and marked up the bill last month. The Agriculture Committee has not yet acted on the bill.

The Committee staff, on a bipartisan basis, have been in discussions over the last week or so with the Natural Resources Committee about provisions in H.R. 2337 where there are policy differences within the Science and Technology jurisdiction. Following

consideration of H.R. 2850, I plan to recess the Committee, and

postpone consideration of H.R. 2337 until Thursday or Friday, so

that our staff may continue with these bipartisan, good faith negotiations.

And let me say that I think we all, Democrats and Republicans,

are concerned about maintaining the, certainly the prerogative of

this committee, jurisdiction of this committee, and we also want to

get a good product. I think we can do this without being a jerk. The

fact of the matter is, as we go through the energy bills, there is

going to be a lot of joint jurisdiction, sometimes two, sometimes

three committees at once. Jim Matheson and I, on another committee, that we are working on some joint things, and so, my hope

is, again, that we can work these things out without getting into

a lot of problems between committees. The fact of the matter is

Democrats and Republicans on this committee are going to work together for a while, our brothers and sisters on Resources, Energy

and Commerce, and Agriculture, we are going to be working together for a while. I think we want to deal with everybody honorably, and that is the way we are going to try to proceed.

We now proceed with the markup. The bill we consider today is

H.R. 2850, the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of

2007. When I became Chairman of this committee, I made a promise that this would be a committee of good ideas and consensus. We

264

are here to solve the problems, and solutions are welcome from

both sides of the aisle. Today, the Committee is meeting to consider

legislation introduced by Congressman Gingrey that addresses an

issue that he has particular expertise with, and that is green chemistry. With an undergraduate degree in chemistry, followed by a

medical degree, Dr. Gingrey has long been an advocate for increasing government research into the green chemistry.

Chemical manufacturing can result in harm to human health

and the environment, due to the use of hazardous materials and

the generation of hazardous byproducts. Green chemistry seeks to

mitigate such harmful outcomes. In short, the goal of green chemistry is to minimize or to eliminate this harm, by using safer materials and manufacturing processes. Besides protecting human

health and the environment, green chemistry can offer economic

advantages, improvements to work safety, public safety, and our

national security.

H.R. 2850 establishes an interagency program to enhance green

chemistry R&D at the National Science Foundation, EPA, DOE,

and NIST. This legislation will provide grants to individual researchers, spur university-industry partnerships, fund research at

federal laboratories, and train students in green chemistry science.

H.R. 2850 is the third iteration of a bill that Congressman

Gingrey has introduced addressing this issue. Democratic amendments were agreed to, and now make up sections of H.R. 2850.

This bill is a product of good bipartisan cooperation.

However, there has, and there remains, apprehension among

some Democratic Members that this Act simply does not go far

enough to promote the adoption of green chemistry, but H.R. 2850

is a good first step, and I urge my colleagues on the Committee to

support this legislation, and I am sure Dr. Gingrey will be glad for

us all to take credit for it at home when we get this passed.

I want to thank all the Members for their cooperation and participation during this first half of the year. I look forward to working with all of you as we move into August.

And let me particularly say thank you to the staff, both Democrats and the Majority. I know we have asked you to do a lot. You

have done a lot. The fact of the matter is that we are going to be

a major participant in the Energy Bill that is going to come down

here very soon. We could have decided no, we are not going to do

it, but we didn’t. We decided we were going to work hard, get

things done, and I think it is going to be pay off, because we are

going to have a lot of provisions in this bill. We are also going to

be major players in the conference, and so, there will be many of

us on that conference, so we can have more input.

Also, I went over to the Senate yesterday to talk with Lamar Alexander. The conference, well, not the conference, but the pre-conference is coming along on our Competitiveness Agenda. He is very

anxious to move this forward. He is doing really a very good job

over in the Senate. Chuck Atkins, who I don’t think is here now,

but has been a great taskmaster, in setting forth an agenda for all

of these, and we have no telling how many committees of jurisdiction in the Senate, that are all working together, again, on a bipartisan, bicameral basis.

265

I think we are going to be able to get this thing done by the end

of this session. If we can get it done and passed—and I remind you

that it passed unanimously out of this committee, we only had 21

negative votes on the House Floor—I think this Competitiveness

Agenda will be the major legislative accomplishment of this first

six months, and again, we will all be a part of that, and I thank

you all for working and helping us.

Let me also say that for those of you that are going on the

CODEL to Greenland this following weekend, Jerry McNerney just

made me aware that you need to get your hepatitis and typhoid

shots. If they are not up to speed, you can check with the doctor’s

office. They will know. I don’t think Greenland is a very hazardous

area, but there are those shots that we need to take, and we will

get ready for that.

So I now recognize Mr. Hall, to present his opening remarks.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Gordon follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BART GORDON

Good Morning. The Committee will come to order. Pursuant to notice, the Committee on Science and Technology meets to consider the following measures:

• H.R. 2850, the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2007.

• H.R. 2337, the Energy Policy Reform and Revitalization Act of 2007.

I would like to briefly talk about H.R. 2337. This bill was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, the Committee on Agriculture, and also to the Committee on Science and Technology. The Natural Resources Committee held hearings

on the bill in May and marked up the bill last month. The Agriculture Committee

has not yet acted on the bill.

Committee staff has been in discussions over the last week or so with the Natural

Resources Committee about provisions in H.R. 2337 where there are policy differences within the Science and Technology jurisdiction. Following consideration of

H.R. 2850, I plan to recess the Committee and postpone consideration of H.R. 2337

until Thursday or Friday so that we may continue negotiations.

We will now proceed with the markup. The bill we will consider today is H.R.

2850, the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2007.

When I took the reigns of this committee, I made a promise that this would be

a committee of ‘‘Good Ideas’’ and ‘‘Consensus.’’ We are here to solve problems, and

solutions are welcome from both sides of the aisle.

Today, the Committee is meeting to consider legislation introduced by Congressman Gingrey that addresses an issue that he has particular expertise with—green

chemistry. With an undergraduate degree in chemistry followed by a medical degree, Dr. Gingrey has long been an advocate for increasing government research

into green chemistry.

Chemical manufacturing can result in harm to human health and the environment due to the use of hazardous materials and the generation of hazardous byproducts. Green chemistry seeks to mitigate such harmful outcomes. In short, the

goal of green chemistry is to minimize or to eliminate this harm by using safer materials and manufacturing processes. Besides protecting human health and the environment, green chemistry can offer economic advantages and improvements to

worker safety, public safety, and our national security.

H.R. 2850, the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act, establishes an

interagency program to enhance green chemistry R&D at NSF, EPA, DOE, and

NIST.

This legislation will provide grants to individual researchers, spur university/industry partnerships, fund research at federal laboratories, and train students in

green chemistry science.

H.R. 2850 is the third iteration of a bill that Congressman Gingrey has introduced

addressing this issue. Under Chairman Boehlert’s leadership in the 108th and 109th

Congresses, Democratic amendments were agreed to and now make up sections of

H.R. 2850. This bill is the product of good bipartisan cooperation.

However, there was, and remains, apprehension among Democratic Members that

this Act simply does not go far enough to promote the adoption of green chemistry.

266

But H.R. 2850 is a good first step, and I urge my colleagues on the Committee to

support this legislation.

I want to thank all the Members for their cooperation and participation during

the first half of this year. I look forward to working with all of you as we move toward the August recess.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I have listened carefully to what you have said, and it is obvious that we want to get

along. We want to work together. We have from here back. We

hope we can from here forward. And we thank you for holding this

markup today, and I am very pleased that we are marking up Dr.

Gingrey’s Green Chemistry Research and Development Bill today.

It is a good bill. It has passed the House of Representatives twice

already, and hopefully, this time, the other body is going to recognize its merits. But it seemed like I am more inclined to want to

have some questions, some parliamentary inquiries, but let me go

on with my statement and see where we are going.

It is my understanding that we will be recessing the Committee

following consideration of Dr. Gingrey’s bill, H.R. 2850, I think that

is what I gleaned from what you said. I am disappointed to hear

that the Committee may not mark up H.R. 2337, the Energy Policy

Reform and Revitalization Act of 2007, and may instead have an

exchange of letters with the Resources Committee pending agreement on a couple of provisions. A number of Members on our side

of the aisle have expressed concern about other provisions in the

bill that are within the Committee’s jurisdiction.

For instance, there is concern that a provision of H.R. 2337 establishes a new procurement program at the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, yet our committee has not even held

a hearing on this provision. I had hoped that we could have a full

and open debate on this legislation. I have a number of concerns

with legislation. I am primarily concerned that it may have a negative effect on American consumers and our energy independence, as

I have expressed on a number of occasions. America is at a crossroads. We are faced with large energy challenges, such as an everincreasing demand for energy that will inevitably drive up costs for

our taxpayers, threaten our national security, and hamper our ability to compete in the world marketplace.

This concern is shared by several organizations that you are very

familiar with: the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association

of Manufacturers. I could go on and on—International Brotherhood

of Electrical Workers and on and on. We have to meet these challenges, energy challenges head-on, by increasing our domestic supply, using all available resources.

This bill, however, could move our country in the opposite direction. It repeals several bipartisan provisions of the Energy Policy

Act of 2005, and it will result in increased dependence on foreign

energy, higher prices for American consumers, and a loss of American jobs. These are provisions in this bill that limit upgrading energy transmission and distribution facilities, delay development of

oil shale and tar sands leasing contracts, add layers of bureaucracy

to slow oil and gas operations, impose new fees on oil and gas

leases, and establish new requirements that will make wind energy

absolutely unaffordable.

I urge the Chairman to move forward with the markup of this

legislation, in this committee. The Science and Technology ComVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:28 Jan 05, 2009 Jkt 037729 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\110MAR~1\37729\37729A.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
267

mittee has a lot to add to the debate. I would be disappointed if

we didn’t to give our Members that opportunity.

And Mr. Chairman, I have copies of numerous letters in opposition to this bill that I would like to offer into the record at this

time, and I would like to yield to Mr. Gingrey for——

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RALPH M. HALL

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this markup today. I am pleased we are

marking up Dr. Gingrey’s Green Chemistry Research and Development bill today.

This is a good bill that has passed the House of Representative twice already. Hopefully, this time the other body will recognize its merits.

It is my understanding that we will be recessing the Committee following consideration of Dr. Gingrey’s bill, H.R. 2850. I am disappointed to hear that the committee may not markup H.R. 2337, the Energy Policy Reform and Revitalization Act

of 2007, and may instead have an exchange of letters with the Resources Committee

pending agreement on a couple of provisions. A number of Members on our side of

the aisle have expressed concern about other provisions in this bill that are within

this committee’s jurisdiction. For instance, there is concern that a provision of H.R.

2337 establishes a new procurement program at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, yet our committee has not even held a hearing on this provision. I had hoped that we could have a full and open debate on this legislation.

I have a number of concerns with this legislation. I am primarily concerned that

it may have a negative effect on American consumers and our energy independence.

As I have expressed on a number of occasions, America is at a crossroads. We are

faced with large energy challenges, such as an ever increasing demand for energy,

that will inevitably drive up costs for our taxpayers, threaten our national security,

and hamper our ability to compete in the world marketplace. This concern is shared

by several organizations, such as the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

We must meet these energy challenges head on by increasing our domestic supply

using all available resources. This bill, however, moves our country in the opposite

direction. It repeals several bipartisan provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005

and it will result in increased dependence on foreign energy, higher prices for American consumers and a loss of American jobs. There are provisions in this bill that

limit upgrading energy transmission and distribution facilities, delay development

of oil shale and tar sands leasing contracts, add layers of bureaucracy to slow oil

and gas operations, impose new fees on oil and gas leases, and establish new requirements that will make wind energy unaffordable.

I urge the Chairman to move forward with the markup of this legislation in this

committee. The Science and Technology Committee has a lot to add to this debate,

and I would be disappointed if we did not give our Members that opportunity.

[The information follows:]

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

Chairman GORDON. With no objection, the letters are to be made

a part of the record.

Mr. HALL. Thank you, sir, and I will yield the balance of my time

to Dr. Gingrey.

Chairman GORDON. If you don’t mind, is that on the green chemistry?

Mr. HALL. Yes.

Chairman GORDON. Let me, I think the gentleman raised good

points. Before you yield, if you would yield to me.

Mr. HALL. Sure.

Chairman GORDON. You deserve to be responded to. We are waiting for the Parliamentarian. I know there are some concerns on the

Resources Bill. As I understand it now, we are only, have been

given joint jurisdiction in two areas, and I think most of what you

raised are outside that, and I would like to ask anybody on my

staff, I think the Parliamentarian may still be looking into a couple

of other areas where we have asked for that, and that’s one reason

that we have asked for this recess, to find out. Obviously, we can’t

be marking up areas, even though you may not like those areas,

if they’re not within our jurisdiction. So, you will understand that.

Also, we are preserving our right to have a markup in those

areas where we do have that jurisdiction, and we are working in

a bipartisan, bi-committee effort to accomplish that. So, again, you

deserve an answer to those concerns, and I want to be sure you had

that.

Mr. HALL. Yes. I thank you, and I am glad to hear that you like

those. You noticed seven, so you must have liked them, and

thought we had jurisdiction.

Chairman GORDON. Right. And so far, the Parliamentarian has

said that we only have two, and so, unless they, you know, we are

still trying to, we are pushing for all of it, and——

Mr. HALL. Okay.

Chairman GORDON. But we can’t go where they don’t allow us to

go.

Mr. HALL. All right. Then the parliamentary inquiry, is H.R.

2337 on the markup notice? The answer to that is yes it is.

Chairman GORDON. Yes. Yes, sir.

Mr. HALL. And why is it on the notice if we are not going to

mark it up today?

Chairman GORDON. Well, because right now, the Parliamentarian only gives us, has only responded to two of the seven areas

of jurisdiction. Secondly, we are in bipartisan, bicameral negotiations, and I think that we are going to be better off if we can work

these things out in a bipartisan, bicameral, not bicameral, excuse

me, bi-committee basis, rather than just slam bam, because I think

that they would treat us the same way with our bills, and again,

we are trying to establish, with Minority and Majority, and with

different committees, to treat each other, you know, we want to try

to have a Golden Rule here. I think we are better off by doing that.

Mr. HALL. What is the exchange of letters about that you mentioned.

Chairman GORDON. We have not had an exchange of letters, I

don’t think, yet, until we reach some type of a bipartisan, and

again, a bicameral agreement.

286

Mr. HALL. Then, I guess, the question is what sections are being

discussed of the seven?

Chairman GORDON. They are, I will give you, let us see. If someone could, 441 and 473 are the ones where the Parliamentarian has

said that we have jurisdiction.

Mr. HALL. And are you working out a deal?

Chairman GORDON. And 303.

Mr. HALL. Are you working out a deal on policy on these seven

sections, on the full seven sections?

Chairman GORDON. No, sir, because we, the Parliamentarian has

not said that we have jurisdiction on the other of those seven. So,

right now, we wrote the Parliamentarian, in conjunction with the

Minority staff, on those areas where we thought that we might

have jurisdiction, to preserve our jurisdiction. The Parliamentarian, again, as I understand it, and please, I do not want to misrepresent this, so if I say something that someone has better information, I welcome to be corrected. But it is my understanding that

they have not referred all of those seven, and only a portion of

those to us, that we are still working with them to get further referral. And again, I stand, I welcome, if someone has better information.

Mr. HALL. That is not my understanding, but I will accept your

explanation at this time. And now, can I—if I have any time left,

can I give it to Dr. Gingrey?

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I can move to strike the last word,

and——

Chairman GORDON. Okay. And if I could, let me correct one more

thing. It is a tetanus shot, not a typhoid shot. So, pardon me for,

I don’t want anybody to be, you know, getting stuck with the wrong

needle there.

Mr. FEENEY. A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman, if it is appropriate.

Chairman GORDON. Certainly.

Mr. FEENEY. I understood the Chairman to say that the Parliamentarian has said we have jurisdiction of the two sections that

were set out, but has the Parliamentarian said that we do not have

jurisdiction over the other five or seven sections in question?

Chairman GORDON. Let me check with our Parliamentarian, and

I will tell you.

It is my understanding that we went to the Parliamentarian on

all seven provisions. Resources countered on that, and said that we

didn’t. The Parliamentarian has ruled that we have jurisdiction on

two of those, and likely, a third, but unlikely on four others. And

again, this is another reason that we feel like that we are recessing

now on this issue until we get a more definitive issue from the Parliamentarian, and so that we, again, can continue our conversations, not again, it is more than just protecting jurisdiction. It is

trying to get good policy, too, and trying, again, to deal with another committee in a way that is appropriate.

What we are finding, and this is just for your information, what

we are finding is some committees are holding their bills to report

to the very last moment, so that it is virtually impossible to have

any kind of input there. I don’t think that is the way to proceed,

and where those committees are working in good faith, I think that

287

we need to try to work in good faith with them. So, that is where

we are, and if anyone else has any——

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Gingrey.

Mr. GINGREY. Well, I have a parliamentary inquiry as well.

Chairman GORDON. Okay. Yes.

Mr. GINGREY. And Mr. Chairman, thank you, and not necessarily

to beat a dead horse here——

Chairman GORDON. Are you satisfied?

Mr. FEENEY. Well, if I could——

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Feeney.

Mr. FEENEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a quick follow-up.

Would the—obviously, both the Majority and certainly the Chairman and the Minority as well would have an interest in not ceding

jurisdiction unnecessarily, because this is all of our committee. We

all have an interest in it.

Would it be appropriate for the Minority to weigh in with a letter

to the Parliamentarian, as he makes his decision about these last

five——

Chairman GORDON. We would welcome that. I would hope that

our original letters to them was bipartisan. I mean, I hope that it

was, but if it wasn’t, we would welcome your support in that, and

best arguments.

Mr. FEENEY. Well, surely, the Parliamentarian would appreciate

us bringing it to his attention anything that may be relevant to his

decision.

Chairman GORDON. Sure.

Mr. FEENEY. And with that, I thank the Chairman for his——

Chairman GORDON. We wouldn’t have asked for referral on those

seven provisions if we weren’t interested in getting them.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I think Mr. Feeney

and I, obviously, are thinking on the same wavelength here this

morning, because that was my point as well, and my parliamentary

inquiry is, since you scheduled the bill, H.R. 2337, to be marked

up this morning, with specific enumeration of the sections of which,

obviously, we would have jurisdiction, 303, 305, 306, 441, 447, 471,

472, and 473.

Chairman GORDON. I am not sure that we would. That is——

Mr. GINGREY. Well, I guess my inquiry is, has the Parliamentarian changed his mind? And to follow up on what Mr. Feeney

said, if he has, and the Parliamentarian, of course, by definition is

a bipartisan figure that represents all of the House, then all of us

should have an opportunity, both on the Minority and the Majority

side, both on the Science Committee and the Resources Committee,

where this bill was debated for 12 hours, and passed on a 26–22

vote, so certainly not an uncontroversial piece of legislation, that

is the Parliamentarian is going to be changing his mind, then we

should have input as well in this interim, while we are discussing

which sections are going to be germane to our committee.

Chairman GORDON. If the gentleman would yield, again, let me

tell you how I understand the situation to be. We made, we asked

the Parliamentarian for joint jurisdiction in seven areas. The Parliamentarian has said you have jurisdiction in two. You probably

have jurisdiction in a third. We have not made a decision on that

288

yet. And you probably do not have jurisdiction in four areas. And

so, we welcome your letter, and any other thoughtful letters to the

Parliamentarian, and efforts to, you know, establish those jurisdictional concerns.

I will point out, well——

Mr. GINGREY. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Chairman GORDON. That is where we are.

Mr. GINGREY. I understand what you said, I just want very

quickly——

Chairman GORDON. Sure.

Mr. GINGREY. Very briefly, I would say based on the information

that we received, Members maybe on both sides of the aisle, but

certainly on this side, including yours truly, has a very thoughtful

amendment, he thinks, to Section 306, which would make the bill

a much better bill. So, we are very concerned about that, and I appreciate the Chairman’s indulgence.

Mr. HALL. Make a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GORDON. The gentleman from Texas is recognized.

Mr. HALL. Is it our intention to mark up at least two sections?

Chairman GORDON. Well, it is our intention to work on a bipartisan basis with the Resources Committee in an effort to work

those out. If a markup is necessary, we may have a markup, but

it is not—it has not been determined yet whether that is necessary.

Mr. HALL. You noticed them for seven, and they said two are

good, and we are here and ready. Why is it we are not going to

have a markup on the two?

Chairman GORDON. Well, by the same reasoning——

Mr. HALL. And we want to work together, and we got sense

enough.

Chairman GORDON. Sure. Yeah.

Mr. HALL. You know my old story about my mathematical problem, but I still can count.

Chairman GORDON. Right. Yes.

Mr. HALL. And we can get outvoted, and we understand that. We

don’t mind that, as long as we have some input on it.

Chairman GORDON. Well, it is my understanding that your staff

has been in on all of the meetings. I think one of those two sections

was worked out yesterday on a bipartisan basis, and I think there

was a meeting this afternoon on the second one, and it would seem

to me as long as we have got bipartisan, bi-committee meetings

going on, it would be a little bit presumptuous to try to have a

markup when we are still working to work these things out.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I am satisfied, but I am not happy. I

will yield back my time to you.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GORDON. Certainly. The gentleman from Michigan,

Mr. Ehlers.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to add to this, a little bit of history and concern on my part. As we know, this committee has been the youngest committee of the Congress for many

years, until Homeland Security came along, and when it was created, it was given pretty much jurisdiction over the space program,

but most of the other committees were reluctant to give up jurisdiction over things that should have been assigned to this committee,

289

for example, the nuclear power program still is in Energy and

Commerce. It clearly belongs under our jurisdiction. And I can give

many other examples.

I have also observed, in my years here, that we are often victimized by the big, powerful committees who claim jurisdiction, and

fight very hard to get jurisdiction over things that we are working

on, and I have had several of my bills stymied just for that reason,

stymied to the point that they were delayed a couple years. So, I

would urge you, Mr. Chairman, to fight strenuously to maintain as

much jurisdiction as you can possibly get. Arguing with the parliamentarians, arguing with the Resources Committee.

In fact, one of my bills, which deals with invasive species, was

basically stopped by the Resources Committee over a dispute like

this. So, I would urge you to fight hard, because this poor little old

Science Committee often is victimized by this big, powerful committees that have been around for a century or more, and I think we

have to fight for every little bit that we can get. So I encourage you

to put up a huge battle, and try to get all seven of those things put

in our jurisdiction. Thank you.

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Ehlers, let me point out, it is not just

Resources. It is going to be Energy and Commerce.

Mr. EHLERS. Yeah.

Chairman GORDON. It is going to be Agriculture. We are going

to have a number of areas where there is going to be joint jurisdiction. A part of the reason that, again, these staff and Members

have worked so hard, was to make us relevant, and to get us into

these battles. You can be well assured that we are going to be holding our ground, and again, a part of our objective, my objective, so

far, is to make this committee more relevant. That is why we are

going to be, we are getting into health care IT, we are getting into

financial security, data security. I mean, you are going to see this

committee cast a wider net, using NIST, using a number of areas.

So, we are not pulling back. We are going forward.

I will give you a quick little note. I was talking with John Dingell

a while back, and I was real proud. I was telling him, you know,

I was explaining the origin of the Science Committee and some of

the things that, you know, that we are doing, and he sort of looked

at me gruffly, and said: ‘‘I am well aware of the origin of the

Science Committee, because most of your jurisdiction came from

us.’’

So, we will be there.

Mr. EHLERS. Right. And I just think, since we are the only committee that knows how to make nuclear weapons, we should have

a little more respect around here.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GORDON. Yes, sir.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Along with that, I don’t know if this is necessarily a parliamentary inquiry, but I guess it is. In other words,

we have scheduled a Committee markup today for a bill that we

are not going to mark up. Is that correct?

Chairman GORDON. We gave notice, and the reason is that we

are in a bipartisan, bi-committee—let me give you an example. Let

us just say this. Let us say the Democrats had a bill today, and

it was marked up, and the Republicans had some amendments that

290

were good, but we got them late. Well, we could say, you know, to

heck with you, we are going to go ahead and mark this up, or we

could say you made a good faith effort to get involved with this bill.

Why don’t we wait a day or two, and try to work these things out?

It is the same situation, I think, with the Natural Resources

Committee. Right now, we have bipartisan, bi-committee negotiations going on, and it would seem to me that it would be, the more

prudent thing is to let these talks proceed, and narrow the issues,

and then, we can go forward. We are preserving our right, make

no mistake about it, we are preserving our right to have a markup

if that is necessary.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I guess that—the point I was making, Mr.

Chairman, are we going to mark up this bill?

Chairman GORDON. If we feel it is necessary.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Who is going to determine if it is necessary

will?

Chairman GORDON. The Chairman will.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Well, Mr. Chairman, I mean, is something as

important as national energy policy in this country, for those kinds

of decisions to be made in closed door meetings, behind——

Chairman GORDON. They are not going to be made in closed door

meetings.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Well, they are not in this meeting. This is a

public forum.

Chairman GORDON. Well, let me make—what time is the meeting

this afternoon? Okay, at 4:00 this afternoon, all of your staff knows

that there is a bipartisan, bi-committee meeting, just like all your

staff have been involved in the other ones. You are welcome, and

any Member is welcome to attend those.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Well, what about——

Chairman GORDON. The door is not closed.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. What about Members of this committee, on

our side, and maybe on your side, too, that have amendments, that

they think would make this bill better, and want an open, and as

I remember, the Chairman’s remarks when he opened up this committee for the first time as the new Chairman, said we are going

to work in a bipartisan, open way. We are going to have markups.

We are going to discuss. We are going to work on this product, and

at the end, we are going to vote on it. And that is the process that

we are going to move forward with, and yet, today, what we are

told, is well, we are going to put this on the agenda, but we are

going to work out the details behind the door with Committee staff,

and when I like it, then it is moving forward without any open debate and consideration for this committee.

Chairman GORDON. Well, you know, I guess it is one of those two

people can see an accident and see it different ways. The fact of

the matter is, once again, let me, this is how we proceed with most

bills. We start off with bipartisan discussion, on the staff level, representing you—you are welcome to attend—so that we can narrow

those issues, that we can try to, you know, knock down the edges,

so that we can have informed markups.

The fact of the matter is, you are more than welcome to attend

the afternoon—you are already noticed about it. You are welcome

to attend that meeting. And we would hope that you would. Bring

291

your best ideas. Let them be discussed, in a bipartisan, again bicommittee way, and that is the way we should proceed.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. But can we do that, and then bring that,

whatever everybody thinks is kind of the consensus product, then,

back to this committee, and let us debate it, and make sure that

there is a consensus to do that.

Chairman GORDON. Well, that is the way we are proceeding.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Well, no, you told me that we weren’t going

to mark this bill up.

Chairman GORDON. No, I did not tell you that.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I asked the question, and you said no.

Chairman GORDON. No. No. I said that has not been determined,

whether it is going to be necessary to.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Well, the answer to my question, are we going

to mark up this bill, you said if it is necessary. Is that——

Mr. HALL. Would the gentleman yield.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. You just repeat, so that——

Chairman GORDON. That is not a no.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. But then you told me, and you were going to

determine if it is necessary.

Chairman GORDON. Well, ultimately, the Chairman will, in consultation with the Minority and the Majority. Certainly.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, it reminds me of a question I asked

a company to loan us some money, and they said I will listen to

your ignorant proposal with an open mind. I don’t like the position

I am in, but once again, I can count. But it seems to me, and the

Chairman is a man of character and a long time friend, but it

seemed like having a markup is holding the ground. You talked

about holding the ground. I think that we are holding our ground

if you go on and have this markup. What is to keep you from doing

that?

Chairman GORDON. Because the issues haven’t been fully vetted,

and it would be, it would seem to me that it would be irresponsible

to move forward when we have just gotten this, you know, right

now, the Parliamentarian hasn’t even told us whether we have jurisdiction in five areas. We are still trying to get those five areas

of jurisdiction.

I mean, it is sort of difficult to mark up a bill that you don’t have

jurisdiction on, and we don’t know that yet. So, and that is the reason that we want to give full notice, and we have given notice, so

that—and the reason that we are recessing is to keep the hammer

on the Resource Committee to know that we can have this markup.

And again, I think most of the concern that, and particularly my

friends from the oil producing area in Texas are having, are in

those areas of the Resource Bill that we don’t have jurisdiction, at

least we haven’t been given it yet.

So, I mean, I think that is the main concern, isn’t it?

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. My main concern is just that I think every

other issue that has come before this committee, I have sat in here

under the Chairman’s leadership, and have appreciated the very

open exchange between ideas brought forward on both sides, but

yet on what I think may be the most important piece of legislation

that the 110th Congress will act on, it is being approached in a difVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:28 Jan 05, 2009 Jkt 037729 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\110MAR~1\37729\37729A.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
292

ferent manner, and quite honestly, I think it shortchanges the

American people. They, you allude to staff, and——

Chairman GORDON. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. As soon as I finish.

Chairman GORDON. Okay, sure.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Yeah. The gentleman alludes to staff. We have

very capable staff, but the American people sent the people that

are sitting on this side of the room to debate these ideas and discussions, and come up with what is, in our estimation, the best policy for this country moving forward with energy. Because quite

honestly, maybe the greatest security risk this country faces today

is energy, and something as important as that, I don’t think should

be done with letters and people’s prerogative. I think it ought to

be done in an open and fair way, so that the American taxpayers

can see that we did give this full consideration.

Chairman GORDON. I agree with you, but again, let me again

point out we can’t mark up provisions that we don’t have jurisdiction on, and I think your concerns are virtually exclusively in areas

that we have not yet been given jurisdiction. So, we cannot mark

up, just like we can’t mark up the dairy subsidies. I am concerned

about dairy subsidies. I am concerned, you know, about a variety

of issues, but we don’t have jurisdiction. So, you cannot mark up

a bill. I guess you could, if we want to take, you know, the time

to go through some kind of faux exercise, but it is simply not, and

I guess the easy thing would have been not to have even talked

about it. We wouldn’t have had this, but I didn’t think that was

a fair thing either.

You know, we are putting a notice, so that we can hold a hammer over the Resources Committee, to know that we are going to

preserve our right to mark up bills that we have jurisdiction on,

and that is the way we are going to proceed. And I think Mr.

Gingrey deserves now to move forward. I mean, I welcome anything else——

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman. On the left side, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GORDON. Yes, sir.

Mr. BAIRD. I would just make two quick observations. First of all,

I, as many people know, have been long a champion of an open

process here in this body, and believe we should have it at the

Committee level and at the public level, but I think it would be unfair to imply that this committee has not had hearings on energy.

We have had a number of hearings on energy since this Congress

began, and those hearings have had a good give and take about

various policies and their effects on our economy and our environment and other things.

So, we have had hearings, and the markup is a place where you

debate the particular amendments, but to suggest that this markup

would come up without any hearings on energy, I think, is inaccurate. And I, just for the record, I would just point out that my

dear friends on the other side of the aisle voted repeatedly in the

last and prior Congresses to that, unanimously, or nearly so, for

rules that allowed bills such as the Medicare bill to come to the

Floor of the House with less than 24 hours for review, and not a

single amendment offered, that they locked the Chairman of the

Ways and Means Committee out of conference committees, and

293

that standard operating procedure, standard operating procedure

in the prior Congress was that the more important the legislation,

the less public the process, and the less input the minority party

had.

So, I find it admirable that my friends on the other side have

come to realize that a fair and open process is part of a democratic

republic, but I would ask them where the heck they were, where

were they, when those votes were taken on the Floor. I don’t recall

a single Member of that party saying to their leadership in public

this is wrong. This is wrong. You ought to allow the Minority an

opportunity for amendments. You ought to allow time for deliberation, and you ought not lock the Chairman of a committee out of

a conference committee.

I yield back.

Chairman GORDON. I think we need to move on. Let me just say,

I think that is an example of what we don’t want to do. We are

trying to do better, and every provision within the Resources Bill

that we have been given jurisdiction on now is, there is bipartisan,

bi-committee discussions on that, with an open door, and you know,

you can’t do any more than that

And so, with no objection, I would like to proceed to Mr.

Gingrey’s bill.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I do object.

Chairman GORDON. Okay.

Mr. HALL. I would like to strike the last word for just a moment,

if I might.

Chairman GORDON. Certainly. Mr. Hall is recognized.

Mr. HALL. I stated in my opening statement there is concern that

a provision in H.R. 2337 establishes a new procurement program

at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, yet our

committee has not even had a hearing on this, and that is what

I said, and I don’t remember having a hearing. If we did, correct

me, but that is, we have not had a hearing on Section 473. It could

cost up to $100 million a year, and I just think that we talk about

government in the sunshine. If the Republicans did it, they

shouldn’t have, and if the Democrats are going to do it, I don’t

think you would be proud of it.

Let us go forward. We will work our way as it goes, and I yield

back my time.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Hall. Again, at 4:00 today,

that will be discussed in an open door manner.

Dr. Gingrey is recognized.

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am recognized for the

Green Chemistry Bill.

Chairman GORDON. I would hope so.

Mr. GINGREY. Yeah. I would hope so, too, after that long, lengthy

discussion. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your continued comity.

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Gingrey, why don’t we, we are still in

the area, before we take up your bill, I think Mr. Wu had a comment that he wanted to make on the bill, and then, we will take,

we will let other statements be placed in the record.

Mr. WU. No, Mr. Chairman. I would like to follow Dr. Gingrey

in making a very brief statement on the Green Chemistry Bill.

Chairman GORDON. Okay.

294

Mr. WU. But I very much, at this point in time, look forward to

the markup on the green chemistry bill.

Chairman GORDON. Okay. All right. So, we will now consider

H.R. 2850, the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of

2007.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia five minutes to describe

his bill.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I want to thank you

especially, and of course, I want to thank Ranking Member Mr.

Hall. I want to thank the original co-sponsors, my Subcommittee

Chairman, David Wu, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart, and Mr.

Welch of Vermont, who is not a Member of this committee, but

very, very interested in this subject.

I do appreciate, Chairman Gordon, you working very closely with

me and with us on this very important, bipartisan piece of legislation. In your opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, you mentioned some

of the history of the Green Chemistry Research and Development

Act, and it goes back to the 108th Congress. And of course, as you

pointed out, it passed the 108th with a wide bipartisan margin.

You talked about the 109th, when you were Ranking Member, and

again, I think on the Floor it, under suspension, it passed by voice

vote. And then, right at the end of the day, when we approached—

Mr. Chairman, you remember I had a conversation with you about

this bill, and you did everything humanly possible to get the other

body to get it through, and at the very last minute, a Member of

my party put a closet hold, for whatever reason, I don’t know, but

I just want to, as we get into discussion of the bill, thank you for

your efforts and your commitment to me, and this is good legislation. I am pleased that we could work together to bring it through

the Committee again, and I hope the third time will truly be the

charm, that we will see H.R. 2850 quickly passed by both chambers

and signed by the President.

In the way of explanation, H.R. 2850, the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act, it establishes a program that promotes and coordinates federal green chemistry research and development activities within several federal agencies, specifically the

NSF, the National Science Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institute of Standards and Technology,

NIST, and of course, the Department of Energy.

Chemists can design chemicals to be safe, just like they can design them to have other properties like color and texture. This

technique of considering not only the process in which products are

manufactured, but also, the environment in which they are created,

is the basic definition of green chemistry. That is basically what

this bill is all about. It is a method of designing chemical products

and processes that, at the very least, reduce, and at the very best,

eliminate the use or generation of hazardous material.

The basic idea is this, preventing pollution and hazardous waste

from the start of the design process is a lot more preferable to

cleaning up that mess, pollution, and waste at a later date. Additionally, the innovation created by this enhanced research will subsequently spur economic growth, as developing new products and

processes is an integral component of many industries, from fabrics

to fuel cells. Green chemistry doesn’t just help protect our environVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:28 Jan 05, 2009 Jkt 037729 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\110MAR~1\37729\37729A.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
295

ment; it protects our workers, too. The conditions under which

chemicals are created and used present many risks to those who

work on their production, but if companies utilize green chemistry,

the materials they use will be as benign as possible, and vastly improve employee conditions.

Unfortunately, despite all the promise of green chemistry, the

Federal Government invests very little in this area. H.R. 2850

works to remedy this by promoting greater federal investment in

and coordination of this important research area.

And Mr. Chairman, I want to thank, as you pointed out earlier,

the excellent staff of both the Majority and the Minority of the

Science Committee, and working with us, and I think, indeed, even

improving this bill in regard to authorizing additional funding, but

only in the proportion that we have already increased the funding

of those particular agencies, basically, at the same percentage.

So, make no mistake, greater federal attention will encourage

universities and academic institutions around the country to train

future workers in this exciting technology. H.R. 2850 will achieve

this by supporting research and development grants to partnership

between universities, industry, and nonprofit organizations. It will

also promote education through curriculum development and fellowships that will collect and disseminate information about green

chemistry.

In past years, many industries, from chemical companies and

pharmaceutical corporations, to carpet manufacturers and biotechnology businesses have endorsed this bill, showing a broad

range of support for the merits of the legislation. This bill, as I say,

is nearly identical to the version passed in the 108th and 109th,

and the companies and corporations that have voiced their strong

support for this bill realize that the advancement of green chemistry is positive, not only for their specific business, but also, for

the country’s environment, our economy, and our nation’s citizens.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2850. I know there are a

couple of amendments, Mr. Chairman, on the Democratic side. I

know Mr. Lipinski has an amendment, and I want to thank him,

the gentleman from Illinois, for offering it. I agree with him that

one of the most basic and underrated steps toward a greener environment is to encourage recycling. That saves energy, and it decreases solid waste, and I believe adding recycling to the Green

Chemistry Research and Development Act strengthens the bill, and

I would be glad to accept the amendment from the gentleman, my

friend from Illinois.

And then, there is another amendment from the gentlewoman

from Texas, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson, and her amendment,

again, is something that I am supportive of, and I am sure she will

speak to that in just a few minutes.

So, in closing, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your indulgence. I

know I went beyond my five minutes, but I urge my colleagues,

please support H.R. 2850, and I do yield back at this time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gingrey follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE PHIL GINGREY

Thank you, Mr. Hall, for yielding me time to describe my bill.

First, I want to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Gordon and his staff

for working with me on this bill. This legislation has passed the House of RepresentVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:28 Jan 05, 2009 Jkt 037729 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\110MAR~1\37729\37729A.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
296

atives in both the 108th and 109th Congresses, and I am pleased we could work

together to bring it through this committee again. I hope the third time will truly

be the charm and that we see H.R. 2850 quickly passed by both chambers and

signed by the President.

H.R. 2850, the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act, establishes a program that promotes and coordinates federal green chemistry research and development activities within several federal agencies. Specifically, the National Science

Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Department of Energy.

Chemists can design chemicals to be safe, just like they can design them to have

other properties, like color and texture. This technique of considering not only the

process in which products are manufactured but also the environment in which they

are created is the basic definition of green chemistry. It is the method of designing

chemical products and processes that at the very least reduce, and at the very best

eliminate, the use or generation of hazardous substances.

The basic idea is this: preventing pollution and hazardous waste from the start

of a design process is far preferable to cleaning up that pollution and waste at a

later date. Additionally, the innovation created by this enhanced research will subsequently spur economic growth, as developing new products and processes is an integral component of many industries, from fabrics to fuel cells.

Green chemistry doesn’t just help protect our environment, it helps protect our

workers, too. The conditions under which chemicals are created and used can

present many risks to those who work on their production. But if companies utilize

green chemistry, the materials they use will be as benign as possible, vastly improving employee conditions.

Unfortunately, despite all of the promise of green chemistry, the Federal Government invests very little in this area. H.R. 2850 works to remedy this by promoting

greater federal investment in and coordination of this important research area.

Make no mistake: greater federal attention will encourage universities and academic institutions around the country to train future workers in this exciting technology. H.R. 2850 will achieve this by supporting research and development grants

to partnerships between universities, industry and non-profit organizations. It will

also promote education through curricula development and fellowships that will collect and disseminate information about green chemistry.

In past years, many industries—from chemical companies and pharmaceutical

corporations to carpet manufacturers and biotechnology businesses—have endorsed

H.R. 2850, showing a broad range of support for the merits of this legislation. This

bill is nearly identical to the version passed in the 109th Congress.

The companies and corporations that have voiced their strong support for this bill

realize that the advancement of green chemistry is positive for not only their businesses, but also our country’s environment, our economy and our nation’s citizens.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2850 and I yield back the balance of my

time.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Dr. Gingrey. I know you have

worked long and hard. I hope we are going to get this done. Let

me ask to report now to, the Clerk to report the bill.

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Wu, if you would, please, we need to report the bill.

The CLERK. H.R. 2850, to provide for the implementation of the

Green Chemistry Research and Development Program, and for

other purposes.

Chairman GORDON. With unanimous consent, the reading of the

bill is dispensed with, and Mr. Wu is recognized.

Mr. WU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to make a brief

statement to recognize that we have a good bill for us. It is a bipartisan bill. I want to recognize the hard work of Dr. Gingrey to bring

this bill back to the Committee, and again, back to the Floor.

We have passed this bill a couple of times through this committee, and we have passed it through the entire House. This is a

good bill that deserves to become legislation. It is long past due,

and with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

297

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mitchell follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE HARRY E. MITCHELL

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Our nation has a long history of innovation in chemical engineering, but along

the way chemical production has become somewhat notorious for hurting the environment.

The Green Chemistry Research and Development Act takes important steps toward

cleaning up the chemical research and manufacturing industry.

It puts money into our prized research institutions to find ways to ensure that

the progress we make in chemical engineering does not damage the environment.

Additionally, it encourages governmental agencies, like the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Science Foundation, to work closely together to establish clean chemistry standards.

Similar versions of this bill passed the House in both the 108th and 109th Congresses with strong bipartisan support.

I am looking forward to what I hope will be the Committee’s favorable consideration of it again today.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman GORDON. Does anyone else wish to be recognized? If

not, I ask unanimous consent that the bill is considered as read

and open to amendment at any point, and that the Members proceed with the amendments in the order of the roster. Without objection, so ordered.

The first amendment on the roster is offered by the gentleman

from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski. Are you ready to proceed with your

amendment?

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GORDON. The Clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 2850, offered by Mr. Lipinski of

Illinois.

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with

the reading. Without objection, so ordered.

The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain the

amendment.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you.

My amendment is a very simple thing, a small, yet important addition to the underlying bill. The amendment actually is two words,

‘‘increase recycling.’’

The amendment would help supply chain manufacturers to increase recycling with the goal of reducing or even eliminating the

use or generation of hazardous substances. Manufacturing extension partnership centers, or MEP centers, would assist in these efforts, as they work to enhance the productivity and technological

performance of U.S. manufacturers.

I firmly believe by incorporating innovative recycling practices

into their manufacturing processes, American industries will better

position themselves to compete in the increasingly global marketplace. In addition, through the increased practice of recycling, our

manufacturers will help to reduce the production of solid and hazardous waste, and improve our environment, and potentially lower

greenhouse gas emissions, and make our country more secure by

lessening our need for foreign sources of energy.

The MEP centers do a great job. I have a lot of manufacturers

in my district who work very well with the MEP centers, and I

think this is, just a great opportunity to improve this bill by adding

recycling in there. I applaud Dr. Gingrey’s work on this bill. I am

298

pleased that Chairman Gordon has worked for its passage. I would

like to thank the Committee staff and Dr. Gingrey for working with

me and accepting my amendment.

It is a very good bill. Hopefully, the third time is a charm. I was

just thinking about this. Maybe—Dr. Gingrey no longer has the

mustache. Maybe that will be the change. Maybe that will be the

difference. This Congress will get the Senate to go ahead and also

accept this, pass this bill. But——

Mr. GINGREY. If the gentleman will yield. I will admit to being

shameless. I will do anything.

Mr. LIPINSKI. I encourage all my colleagues to support this

amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lipinski follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE DANIEL LIPINSKI

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My simple amendment contains a small, yet important

addition to the underlying bill.

The amendment would help supply chain manufacturers to increase recycling,

with the goal of reducing or even eliminating the use or generation of hazardous

substances. Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Centers would assist in

these efforts as they work to enhance the productivity and technological performance of U.S. manufacturers.

I firmly believe that by incorporating innovative recycling practices into their

manufacturing processes, American industries will better position themselves to

compete in the increasingly global marketplace. In addition, through the increased

practice of recycling, our manufacturers will help to reduce the production of solid

and hazardous waste, and improve our environment, and potentially lower greenhouse gas emissions and make our country more secure by lessening our need for

foreign sources of energy.

I applaud Dr. Gingrey’s work on this bill and am pleased that Chairman Gordon

has worked toward its passage. I’d like to thank the Committee staff and Dr.

Gingrey for working with me and accepting my amendment. I encourage all of my

colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman GORDON. Is there further discussion on the amendment? If no, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say

aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is

agreed to.

The second amendment on the roster is 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 to H.R. 2850, offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas.

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. The gentlelady is recognized for five minutes to explain the amendment.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won’t take the five

minutes. I will submit the statement. I simply want to say that I

strongly support the bill, and I appreciate Dr. Gingrey accepting

this amendment, which merely says ‘‘Minority-serving institutions

shall receive due consideration for such funding.’’ And that is the

end of it. I yield back the balance of my time, and ask that the bill

be passed.

299

Chairman GORDON. Are there further, anyone, is there anyone

else that would like to address this amendment? If no, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Those opposed,

no. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.

Are there other amendments? If no, then the vote is on the bill,

H.R. 2850, 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.

I recognize Mr. Hall to offer a motion.

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

report H.R. 2850, as amended, to the House with the recommendation that the bill, as amended, do pass. Furthermore, I move that

the staff be instructed to prepare the legislative report, and make

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

consideration.

I yield back.

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

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

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

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

The Members will have two subsequent calendar days in which to

submit supplemental, Minority, or additional views on the measure, ending Monday, June the 16th, at 7:00 a.m.

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

House of Representatives, that the Committee authorize the Chairman to offer such motions as may be necessary in the House to

adopt and pass H.R. 2850, the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2007, as amended. Without objection, so ordered.

I want to thank Members for their attendance. Under Rule IJ,

further proceedings of this markup will stand in recess, subject to

the call of the Chair.

[Whereupon, at 11:07 a.m., the Committee stood in recess.]

(301)

Appendix:

H.R. 2850, SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS, AMENDMENT ROSTER

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF H.R. 2850,

THE GREEN CHEMISTRY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2007

Section 1: Short Title

‘‘Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004.’’

Section 2: Definitions

Defines terms used in the text including green chemistry, interagency working

group, and program.

Section 3: Green Chemistry Research and Development Program

This section directs the President to establish an interagency research and development (R&D) program to promote and coordinate federal green chemistry research,

development, demonstration, education, and technology transfer activities. The program will provide sustained support for green chemistry R&D through merit-reviewed competitive grants, R&D partnerships of universities, industry, and nonprofit organizations, and through R&D conducted at federal laboratories.

The program will provide support for, and encouragement of, the application of

green chemistry through encouragement of, the application of green chemistry in all

federally funded chemical science and engineering R&D; examination of methods to

create incentives for the use of green chemistry; promotion of the education and

training of undergraduate and graduate students and professional chemists and

chemical engineers in green chemistry; collection and dissemination of information

on green chemistry R&D and technology transfer; and provision of venues of outreach and dissemination of green chemistry advances such as symposia, forums,

conferences, and written materials.

Establishes an interagency working group composed of representatives from the

National Science Foundation, the National Institute for Standards and Technology,

the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and any other

agency that the President may designate, to oversee the planning, management, and

coordination of all federal green chemistry R&D activities.

Names the Director of the National Science Foundation and the Assistant Administrator for R&D at the Environmental Protection Agency as co-chairs and requires

the group to establish goals and priorities for the program and provide for interagency coordination, including budget coordination. Requires the group to submit 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 within

two years of the enactment of this legislation that includes a summary of the

progress made towards the goals and priorities established for the program, including recommendations for future program activities.

Section 4: Manufacturing Extension Center Green Suppliers Network

Grant Program

Amends the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act to make eligible

as a Manufacturing Extension Program activity with the enabling of supply chain

manufactures to conduct activities with the aim of reducing or eliminating the use

or generation of hazardous substances.

Section 5: Undergraduate Education in Chemistry and Chemical Engineering

This section enables the Director of the National Science Foundation to award

grants to institutions of higher learning to revise undergraduate curriculum in

chemistry and chemical engineering to incorporate green chemistry concepts and

strategies.

Section 6: Study on the Commercialization of Green Chemistry

This section calls for the Director of the National Science Foundation to conduct

a study with the National Research Council to examine the barriers to the successful commercial application of promising results from green chemistry research and

development.

Section 7: Partnerships in Green Chemistry

This section establishes a program to award grants to institutions of higher education to create partnerships with companies in the chemical industry to retrain

chemists and chemical engineers in the use of green chemistry concepts and strategies.

316

Section 8: Authorization of Appropriations

Authorizes appropriations for green chemistry R&D programs from sums already

authorized to be appropriated, for the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

317

318

319

320

PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARKUP BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION ON H.R. 5789, THE SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION ACT OF 2008

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16, 2008

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:08 p.m., in Room

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. David Wu [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

Chairman WU. Good afternoon. The Subcommittee on Technology

and Innovation will now come to order, and pursuant to notice, the

Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation meets to consider the

following measure: H.R. 5789, the Science and Technology Innovation Act of 2008. We will now proceed with the markup, beginning

with opening statements, and the Chair recognizes himself.

I want to welcome everyone to the Subcommittee markup of H.R.

5789, the Science and Technology Innovation Act of 2008. This bill

reauthorizes two programs critical to the competitiveness of the

United States, the Small Business Innovation Research Program,

or SBIR, and the Small Business Technology Transfer Program,

STTR. Our committee has been working on this bill for quite some

time, and I want to thank Ranking Member Phil Gingrey and all

of the Members of the Committee for continuing our work in

crafting legislation which supports innovation.

In today’s economy, small business is often where innovation

comes from. The Science and Technology Committee, and especially

the Technology and Innovation Subcommittee, intends to promote

science and technology research that drives an innovation-based

economy. SBIR and STTR are key components of our innovation

agenda. At more than $2.3 billion per year, SBIR and STTR comprise the largest source of federal support for technology innovation

for the private sector. These funds help companies with innovative

ideas bring their products to market to create both new products

and jobs. However, these programs originated more than 20 years

ago, and much has changed since then. These programs need to be

restructured to reflect the current global competitive environment,

and the Technology and Innovation Subcommittee held numerous

hearings last year on the SBIR and STTR programs to analyze

their place in an innovation agenda for the 21st century.

Our witnesses made many suggestions on how the SBIR and

STTR programs could be strengthened. During hearings for the reauthorization of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, witnesses

said that programs like SBIR and STTR are necessary if the U.S.

is going to capture the economic benefits of our federal investment

in nanotechnology research. Outside groups agree. SBIR and STTR

are important to commercializing inventions that begin with investVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:28 Jan 05, 2009 Jkt 037729 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\110MAR~1\37729\37729A.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
321

ments in basic research and end with new jobs, new products, and

new services. Members of this committee agree on the importance

of our high-tech entrepreneurial companies in creating new technologies, and these are exactly the companies targeted by SBIR.

STTR links these small high-tech companies with our universities,

which are a key creator of new high-tech ideas.

Based upon this subcommittee’s hearings, H.R. 5789 will do the

following: it reauthorizes the SBIR and STTR programs through

2010. Although this period is short, it will put both programs on

the same reauthorization cycle. In addition, the authorization timeframe will give Congress time to examine how well each program

is working to better focus on innovation. Next, for any federal agency which spends more than $100 million per year on extramural research, it would set increases to 3.0 percent for SBIR and to 0.6

percent for STTR. This emphasizes the importance we place upon

SBIR and STTR as part of the innovation agenda. Third, this bill

increases phase-one awards from $100,000 to $300,000, and it increases phase-two awards from $750,000 to $2.2 million to better

reflect the actual costs of doing high-tech research in today’s environment. Number four, it increases the flexibility of the SBIR program by allowing cross-agency awards and allowing applicants to

apply directly for phase-two funding. Number five, the bill allows

venture-capital backed small businesses to apply for awards and

defines eligibility requirements. Number six, the bill expands requirements on agency databases of award recipients and also requires inter-operability and accessibility between agency databases,

and this will permit improved oversight by the agencies and by

Congress, on how on the agencies and how the programs are operating. Number seven, the bill allows for no more than three percent

of program funds to be used for administrative costs. Currently,

agencies pay for administration of SBIR, taking funds from other

agency programs, and naturally, they must try to administer the

program as cheaply as possible. This results in little oversight of

the program, with a focus on simply obligating all of the funds.

That is not the type of management we want for an over $2 billion

program. At our hearing, it was agreed that allowing some administrative costs would help improve the quality and oversight of the

program. And finally, the bill establishes an interagency committee, co-chaired by the Director of OSTP and the Director of

NIST, to report to Congress on both practices for commercialization

of SBIR- and STTR-funded research.

In closing, this subcommittee has been a leader in passing legislation that advances our innovation agenda. Today, we continue

our leadership by reauthorizing SBIR and STTR. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I now recognize Dr. Gingrey

to present his opening remarks.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Wu follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DAVID WU

I want to welcome everyone to the Subcommittee markup of H.R. 5789, the

Science and Technology Innovation Act of 2008. This bill reauthorizes two programs

critical to the competitiveness of the U.S., the Small Business Innovative Research

Program (SBIR) and the Small Business Technology Transfer Research Program

(STTR).

322

Our committee has been working on this bill for some time, and I want to thank

my Ranking Member Dr. Gingrey and all the Members of the Committee for continuing our work in crafting legislation that supports innovation.

In today’s economy, small business is where innovation happens. The Science and

Technology Committee, especially the Technology and Innovation Subcommittee, intends to promote science and technology research that drives an innovation-based

economy. SBIR and STTR are key components of our innovation agenda. At more than $2.3

billion per year, SBIR and STTR comprise the largest source of federal support for

technological innovation in the private sector. These funds help companies with innovative ideas bring their products to market.

However, these programs originated more than 20 years ago. Much has changed

since then; these programs need to be restructured to reflect the current global innovation environment.

The Technology and Innovation Subcommittee held hearings last year on the

SBIR and STTR programs to analyze their place in an innovation agenda for the

21st century. Our witnesses made many suggestions on how the SBIR and STTR

programs could be strengthened.

During hearings for the reauthorization of the National Nanotechnology Initiative

(NNI), witnesses said that programs like SBIR and STTR are necessary if the U.S.

is going to capture the economic benefits of our federal investment in

nanotechnology research.

Outside groups agree—SBIR and STTR are important to commercializing products that begin with investments in basic research.

Members of this committee agree on the importance of our high-tech entrepreneurial companies in creating new technologies. These are exactly the companies

targeted by SBIR. STTR links those small high-tech companies with our universities, which are a key cradle of new high-tech ideas.

Based upon this subcommittee’s hearings H.R. 5798 does the following:

1. Reauthorizes the SBIR & STTR programs thru 2010. This will put both programs on the same reauthorization cycle. In addition, the authorization time

frame will give Congress time to examine how well both programs are working to better focus on innovation.

2. For any federal agency which spends more than $100 million in intra- or extramural research per year, the set aside increases to 3.0 percent for SBIR

and to 0.6 percent for STTR. This emphasizes the importance we place upon

SBIR and STTR as part of the innovation agenda.

3. Increases the Phase I awards from $100,000 to $300,000 and Phase II

awards from $750,000 to $2.2 million to better reflect the actual costs of

doing high-tech research;

4. Increases the flexibility of the SBIR program by allowing cross-agency

awards and allowing applicants to apply directly for Phase II funding;

5. Allows venture capital-backed small businesses to apply for awards and defines eligibility requirements;

6. Expands requirements on agency databases of award recipients. This section

also requires inter-operability and accessibility between agency databases.

This will allow for improved oversight by Congress on how agencies actually

operate SBIR programs.

7. Establishes an Interagency Committee co-chaired by the Director of OSTP

and the Director of NIST to report to Congress on the best practices for commercialization of SBIR- and STTR-funded research.

In closing, this subcommittee has been a leader in passing legislation that advances our innovation agenda. Today we continue our leadership by reauthorizing

SBIR and STTR. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. GINGREY. Chairman Wu, I am pleased that this markup has

been called today to look at the important issue of reauthorizing

both the Small Business Innovation Research grant program, and

the Small Business Technology Transfer Program, STTR.

These are both grant programs that have been effective in providing government assistance to small businesses to help more people in our country achieve the American dream. However, Mr.

Chairman, I do have to express concerns with the process, the legislative process, by which this bill has been conducted. I appreciate

323

the Majority’s willingness to hold hearing on this important matter,

like we did last summer, but I do find it troubling that the final

text of the Science and Technology Innovation Act of 2008 was only

made available to the Minority once this markup was scheduled,

late last week. I am proud to say, as I have many times in the

past, that this committee operates in a very bipartisan way. In

most cases, our Minority side is certainly given the opportunity to

provide its input to the bills before they are marked up at the Subcommittee level. However, I find it unfortunate that that bipartisanship was compromised, I think, on this bill, maybe for the sake

of legislative expediency. Had the Minority been consulted much

earlier, and had we been given a better notice of today’s markup,

I believe—I truly believe that this legislation would be a reflection

of broad input from Members on both sides of the aisle.

With that said, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my

time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gingrey follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE PHIL GINGREY

Chairman Wu, I am pleased that this markup has been called today to look at

the important issue of reauthorizing both the Small Business Innovation Research

grant program and the Small Business Technology Transfer program. These are

both grant programs that have been effective in providing government assistance to

small businesses to help more people in our country achieve the American Dream.

However, Mr. Chairman, I have to express my concerns with the legislative process by which this bill has been conducted. I appreciate the Majority’s willingness

to hold hearings on this important matter last summer, but I find it troubling that

the final text of the Science and Technology Innovation Act of 2008 was only made

available to the Minority once this markup was scheduled late last week.

I am proud to say that this committee operates in a very bipartisan way. In most

cases, the Minority is given the opportunity to provide its input to the bill before

it is marked up at the Subcommittee level. However, it is unfortunate that the bipartisanship was compromised on this bill for the sake of legislative expediency.

Had the Minority been consulted much earlier and been given better notice of today’s markup, I believe that this legislation would be a reflection of broad input

from Members on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman WU. And I thank the gentleman, and I understand the

gentleman’s concern about the pace of these proceedings, and I personally apologize for any sense of rush on this bill. And quite honestly, it was our intent, I think, by staff on both sides, to markup

this bill just a little ways down the pike. But I do believe that a

copy of the bill, which is substantially unchanged from today’s bill,

was given to both the Majority and Minority side around the middle of March, but it was the expectation of both sides that this

markup would occur a little bit later than this, and due to circumstances beyond this Chairman’s control, the markup is occurring today.

Mr. GINGREY. Chairman, if you would yield to me for a question.

Chairman WU. Yes, I would be happy to yield.

Mr. GINGREY. Well, that being said, is it the intention that this

bill will be marked up in the Full Committee after we get done

with the markup today in Subcommittee?

Chairman WU. This subcommittee will markup the legislation.

The full Small Business Committee, which traditionally has

marked up first, will markup parallel legislation tomorrow, and

324

then we will be bringing those bills together and bringing the legislation to the Floor.

Mr. GINGREY. If the Chairman will yield for just an additional

question?

Chairman WU. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. GINGREY. Is it not true, though, that that is not what we

would normally consider regular order, regular order being a markup at a Subcommittee level, and then pending approval, a markup

by the Full Committee. I would assume that is what is happening

in the Small Business Committee, and I just wonder why they are

swaying away from regular order in that regard.

Chairman WU. Reclaiming my time, my understanding, although

I am not intimately familiar with their proceedings, my understanding is that the Small Business Committee is not having a

Subcommittee markup. They are having a Full Committee markup.

Now, prior to this date, at least in this Congress, we have, as far

as I know, consistently moved legislation from Subcommittee to

Full Committee and then to the Floor. There may have been an exception to that during the 100 days agenda, but I am working off

recollection, and I just don’t know if it is 100 percent or not.

Mr. GINGREY. If the Chairman will yield?

Chairman WU. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate very much that

explanation. How do you foresee these bills being put together before they go to the Floor?

Chairman WU. I think that the two committees, the bills, as

marked-up by this subcommittee, and the bill as marked-up by the

full Small Business Committee, will be substantially similar. That

is not to preclude the possibility that there may be managers

amendments or other changes between there and the Rules Committee and the Floor.

Mr. EHLERS. Will the gentleman yield?

Chairman WU. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to comment—and

nothing I say should be construed as criticism of you or the Chairman of the Full Committee or the majority party, but I am disturbed by the process and largely because this, once again, is a

case where the Science Committee is getting stomped upon by another committee with which it shares jurisdiction. We are equal

partners in this particular topic, the SBIR. SBA runs the program,

but we are supposed to monitor the science related to it, and we,

by the extreme rush with which the other committee is handling

this, without giving us adequate time to deal with it, with suddenly

going to Full Committee, reporting it out to the Floor. That does

not give us an opportunity to really work our will on this. We have

had the hearings. We have had a couple of hearings, over two

years, on this issue, waiting for the other committee of jurisdiction

to act, and now finally they are acting, and after two years of diddling around, suddenly it has to be done in two days and go to the

Floor immediately. I object to that procedure, partially because I

think it really endangers the jurisdiction of this committee. This is

not the first time that other committees have treated us shabbily.

I think we really have to, as the youngest committee here, and one

that did not get adequate jurisdiction when it was originally creVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:28 Jan 05, 2009 Jkt 037729 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\110MAR~1\37729\37729A.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
325

ated—obviously, NIH should be in this committee, but it isn’t because another committee refused to give it up. But we see this over

and over, and the only way we are going to get the subjects before

this committee that really belong before this committee is to dig in

our heels and say enough. We are going to claim full responsibility

and full opportunity in this committee as well. So as I say, this is

not a criticism of you or the Majority in any sense. It is a criticism

of the institution, perhaps, on behalf of this committee, that we

really have to make it clear we are here to stay. We are going to

act with force on all issues that come before, and above all, I would

hope that the Majority would insist that when this bill goes to the

Floor, it goes after proceeding through the Rules Committee so that

we have the opportunity to present amendments there. If after this

charade that we are going through now it goes directly to the Floor

on a suspension, we will not have had any opportunity to input,

and I will certainly raise strong objections to that. And I vow to

get leaders of the Minority party to also raise a fuss about it, lest

there be an opportunity to debate these issues on the Floor, at

least, if we don’t have a chance to work on them with the other

committee of jurisdiction.

So as you know, I am an even-tempered person. I don’t get angry

often, but this is a case where I think we have to fight together.

We have to fight for the jurisdiction of this committee and make

it known that we do not want this sort of thing. Thank you very

much for yielding.

Chairman WU. I thank the gentleman for his comments, in reclaiming my time. Without commenting on the scheduling of any

other committee, it is precisely because I believe very strongly in

the input of the Subcommittee, and preferably the whole Committee, that we are holding this markup today so that Members

can have as much opportunity as possible to consider the bill, to

propose amendments, and the gentleman certainly has my full support to take this bill to the Floor under a rule, rather than under

suspension of the rules.

Mr. EHLERS. And I do thank you for holding this hearing, and

I appreciate that.

Chairman WU. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, if you would yield for an addition

short——

Chairman WU. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. GINGREY. The gentleman from Michigan said he is an eventempered man, and the gentleman from Georgia is also even-tempered; mad all of the time. But no, truly, in the spirit of bipartisanship, which especially prevails on this subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, we respect you for that, a great wake-up call not only would

be to bring this bill to the Floor under a rule, but also encourage

you, Mr. Subcommittee Chairman, to ask our Full Committee

Chairman and maybe also Chairman Velazquez of the Small Business Committee, to encourage the Rules Committee to make this

open rule. And that would be, I think, a very great statement for

bipartisanship, and we would hope that you would do that for us.

Chairman WU. Reclaiming my time, I certainly enjoy and encourage and value the bipartisanship of this subcommittee and the Full

Committee. I will strongly encourage bringing this bill under a rule

326

to the Floor. I am afraid that what kind of rule it is under is a little bit above my pay-grade, and I thank the gentleman for his comments. We do have a set of Floor votes, which have been called,

and there are two minutes left to vote, and under those circumstances, I would like to recess this markup until after the Floor

votes, and those Floor votes will take probably somewhere between

30 and 60 minutes, and we will reconvene, very promptly after the

Floor votes.

[Recess.]

Chairman WU. The Committee is reconvened. Without objection,

any Members who have opening statements may place their statements in the record at this point.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill is considered read and

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

the amendments in the order of the roster. Without objection, so

ordered.

The first 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?

The Clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 5789.

Chairman WU. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the

reading. Without objection, so ordered.

Dr. Ehlers, you are recognized for five minutes.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a very straightforward amendment. It would strike sections 201 and 202, which

provide for an increase in the agencies set aside to three percent,

when it is currently 2.5 percent, for SBIR, and .06 percent, up from

the current .03 percent, for the STTR.

My concern about this is, first of all, it is a substantial increase

in the set-aside in both cases. Secondly, as we all know, when the

Omnibus Bill was passed last fall, it did major damage to the funding for the science organizations of the federal government, particularly the National Science Foundation, NIST, Department of Energy, and several other agencies. And it seems to me particularly

strange that when we have either reduced or given very small increases for the basic research, which this country desperately

needs, and which is what the COMPETES Act was all about, which

this committee worked on so hard for so long, it seems strange to

me that when the funding is low, that we would increase the setaside and do even greater damage to a agencies such as the National Science Foundation, et cetera. It is just—even aside from

whether or not they should have the increase, which we can certainly debate, this is obviously the wrong time to do it, and I believe it will hurt the science agencies of the Federal Government

which are already really struggling. The Department of Energy, for

example, is laying off several hundred people as a result of the cuts

they received in the Omnibus Bill, so I strongly support this

amendment, and I hope we will pass it. We can consider changing

the set-aside at some future date, once we properly restore funding

to the science agencies I mentioned.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman WU. Thank you, Doctor. Anyone seeking time?

327

The Chair recognizes himself. Regrettably, I oppose this amendment. The increase to three percent would be more than offset by

the R&D increases authorized in the America COMPETES Act, and

if the authorization levels are met by the appropriators of the increase to three percent, it will not decrease the amount of funds

available for pure research.

Additionally, at our hearings, there is uniform support for increasing the size of awards, at a minimum, to adjust for inflation.

However, I think that many folks are concerned that if we do increase the size of awards, that there will be fewer awards, so we

do need to increase the set-aside, and on that basis, I support the

gentleman’s sentiment to increase the amount of money available

to research, but I think three percent is a reasonable number for

commercialization of the products, of the fruits of that research, to

turn the research into products and jobs.

Any other comment on the amendment?

Mr. EHLERS. Will the gentleman yield?

Chairman WU. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you for yielding. I just would like to comment that—and I can see the handwriting on the wall here—but

I think this is another good argument for taking this to the Floor

under a rule so that we will have an opportunity to offer these

amendments there, primarily because this is not going to Full

Committee, and so most of the Science Committee will not have an

opportunity to debate this amendment unless we do have the opportunity to offer amendments on the Floor.

Chairman WU. Reclaiming my time, as the gentleman knows, I

support the gentleman’s sentiment about bringing this legislation

to the Floor under a rule.

Is there any further discussion of the amendment?

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Chairman?

Chairman WU. The Chairman of the Full Committee is recognized for five minutes.

Chairman GORDON. Well, he doesn’t need that long, but let me

just say that Dr. Ehlers has a reputation for not bringing frivolous

got-you amendments to this committee, and this is a thoughtful—

there can be disagreements, but no one would disagree that his approach here—it is my understanding, and I am not guaranteeing

anything—but it is my understanding that there is an interest in

bringing this bill to the Floor with a rule. I will communicate,

again for whatever that is worth, to the Rules Committee that I

think it is appropriate. I may not support it. I probably won’t support it, because there has been a delicate balance reached in making this, with a consultation, both with the Minority as well as

with the Small Business, but there can be no question that this is

a worthwhile amendment, and I will, again, ask—I used to be on

the Rules Committee, but I am not any longer, so all I can do is

ask.

Mr. EHLERS. I appreciate that. Thank you.

Chairman WU. Is there any further discussion of the amendment?

And if not, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor say

aye. Those opposed to say no. In the opinion of the Chair, the nos

have it. And the nos have it.

328

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, could we have a recorded vote on

that, please?

Chairman WU. The Clerk will call the roll.

The CLERK. Chairman Wu.

Chairman WU. No.

The CLERK. Chairman Wu votes no.

Ms. Richardson.

Ms. RICHARDSON. No.

The CLERK. Ms. Richardson votes no.

Mr. Matheson.

Mr. MATHESON. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Matheson votes no.

Mr. Mitchell.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Wilson.

Mr. WILSON. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Wilson votes no.

Mr. Chandler.

Mr. CHANDLER. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Chandler votes no.

Mr. Ross.

Mr. ROSS. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Ross votes no.

Mr. Gordon.

Chairman GORDON. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Gordon votes no.

Mr. Gingrey.

Mr. GINGREY. Yes.

The CLERK. Mr. Gingrey votes aye.

Mr. Ehlers.

Mr. EHLERS. Yes.

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers votes aye.

Ms. Biggert.

Ms. BIGGERT. Aye.

The CLERK. Ms. Biggert votes aye.

Mr. Adrian Smith.

Mr. SMITH. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Adrian Smith votes aye.

Mr. Broun.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Hall.

[No response.]

Chairman WU. The Clerk will report the tally.

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, four Members vote aye, and seven

Members vote no.

Chairman WU. The amendment is not agreed to.

The second amendment on the roster is an amendment offered

by the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey. Dr. Gingrey, are you

ready to proceed with your amendment?

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, yes, I have an amendment at the

desk.

Chairman WU. The Clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. Amendment 017, Amendment to H.R. 5789, offered

by Mr. Gingrey of Georgia.

329

Chairman WU. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the

reading. Without objection, so ordered.

I recognize the Ranking Member, Dr. Gingrey, for five minutes

to explain his amendment.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, thank you. This amendment that

I am offering to H.R. 5789 will provide a practical way to maintain

the integrity of SBIR and STTR programs.

In the current form, the bill allows for companies to apply directly for a Phase II grant, and we know those grants have a maximum award, now, of $2.2 million. They can do this without having

received a Phase I grant. I find this practice to be somewhat problematic because it allows companies to conduct Phase I process on

private funds before approaching the Federal Government for SBIR

or STTR assistance in Phase II. Ostensibly, if a company has the

ability to use private funds for Phase I, then it should be able to

continue to Phase II on private funds. I believe that the current

language regarding this within H.R. 5789 only provides incentives

to companies that can already afford to cultivate R&D initiatives

to come to the Federal Government when they should not do so.

This practice has the potential of reducing the opportunity for companies that truly need the assistance to utilize SBIR and STTR

programs the way that they are intended.

I am offering this amendment to specifically address this issue

by striking the language that provides for bypassing Phase I

grants. Therefore, the bill would require that in order for a company to be eligible for a Phase II grant, it would first have to have

been a recipient of a Phase I grant. I believe that adopting this

amendment will strengthen the SBIR and STTR programs so that

they can fulfill the mission, that of providing small-business assistance to entrepreneurs that are in the most need of financial assistance from the Federal Government.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and Mr. Chairman, with that, I will yield back the balance of my time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gingrey follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE PHIL GINGREY

Mr. Chairman, this second amendment that I am offering to H.R. 5789 will provide yet another practical way to maintain the integrity of the SBIR and the STTR

programs.

In its current form, H.R. 5789 allows for companies to apply directly for a Phase II grant that has a maximum award of $2.2 million, without having received a

Phase I grant. I find this practice to be somewhat problematic because it allows

companies to conduct the Phase I process on private funds before approaching the

federal government for SBIR or STTR assistance in Phase II.

Ostensibly, if a company has the ability to use private funds for Phase I, then

it should be able to continue to Phase II on private funds. I believe that the current

language regarding this within H.R. 5789 only provides incentives to companies that

can already afford to cultivate R&D initiatives to come to the Federal Government

when they should not do so. This practice has the potential of reducing the opportunity for companies that truly need the assistance to utilize the SBIR and STTR

programs the way they are intended.

I am offering this amendment to specifically address this issue by striking the

language that provides for bypassing Phase I grants. Therefore, the bill would require that in order for a company to be eligible for a Phase II grant, it would first

have to have been the recipient of a Phase I grant.

I believe that adopting this amendment will strengthen the SBIR and STTR programs so that they can fulfill the mission of providing small business assistance to

entrepreneurs that are in the most need of financial assistance from the Federal

Government.

330

I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman WU. I thank the gentleman, and again, regrettably, I

must oppose the amendment, because if a small business has already done the preliminary work under Phase I, I do not think that

the business should be penalized for having spent its own money,

and then coming to the Federal Government for a Phase II grant,

and skipping Phase I. The amounts are dramatically different. A

Phase I grant, under the proposed legislation, is for $300,000, and

a company that can afford $300,000 in development may not be

able to afford the new amount in Phase II of $2.2 million.

The agencies which testified to this subcommittee stated that it

would enhance SBIR and STTR programs if a small business could

apply directly for a Phase II award, and I must add that this is

a not a mandatory program. This is an option to the agencies to

permit skipping Phase I, if they choose to do so.

Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment?

If not, then the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say

aye. Those opposed, say no. In the opinion of the Chair, the nos

have it, and the amendment is not agreed to.

It is now in order to consider the third amendment on the roster,

and it is also offered by the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

Dr. Gingrey, are you ready to proceed with your amendment?

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, yes, I have an amendment at the

desk.

Chairman WU. The Clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. Amendment 019, Amendment to H.R. 5789, offered

by Mr. Gingrey of Georgia.

Chairman WU. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the

reading, and without objection, so ordered.

I recognize the gentleman from Georgia for five minutes to explain his amendment.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Again, I brought forth

what I believe is a very common sense and practical amendment

to ensure that small business innovation and research grants actually go to small business applicants.

Put simply, venture capital is important to small business initiatives because it provides needed financial assistance and credibility

to the ideas and products that possess the potential to be commercialized. However, because these grants are intended for small

business research and development, we must ensure that venture

capital does not represent a majority of the financial interest within an SBIR application. The manner in which this bill is currently

written only limits a single venture capital firm from owning 49

percent of the interest of the company applying for the SBIR grant.

This leaves open the possibility that more than one venture capital

firm could own in the aggregate a majority of financial interest

within the company. I mean an example, in the aggregate, all owning less than 49 percent, they could own 99 percent of the company, if you had two or more, as an example.

I have just given that worst-case scenario, so Mr. Chairman, I

believe that this really goes against the spirit of the SBIR program,

and I had some language that I wanted to read from the report language of the original bill, back in 1982, and it says ‘‘the recognition

331

of the ability of the small firm to develop and commercialize new

technologies coupled with the apparently declining rate of innovation and productivity in United States industries as a whole have

led to widespread interest in the problems of the small business

community and the amount of federal R&D funding which is flowing into this sector.’’ And then it goes on to say under subparagraph B, state of small business participation in federal R&D, ‘‘a

purpose of the bill is to increase the utilization of small business

in federal research and development. Some have argued that a setaside of federal R&D funds for small business is justified on the

basis that small firms have been demonstrably innovative and yet

receive a small share of the federal R&D budget. During debate on

the legislation, frequent reference have been made to the small

business share of federal R&D.’’

Mr. Chairman, again, I believe that that hopefully reflects the

original intent of the bill, and that what we are doing in regard to

venture capitalists goes against the spirit of the SBIR program.

Reading further from that report language, it says, specifically, the

legislation is also intended to ‘‘provide seed capital to small, hightechnology firms at the early high-risk stage of initial concept development.’’ Funds provided under—well, that was the name of the

bill back then. They go on to elaborate on that point. So the program is designed to provide assistance to a small business that

may have an idea that can be considered a diamond in the rough,

if you will, without necessarily having the financial backing to

move its promising idea towards commercialization and maybe

even the interest of venture capitalists at the outset.

My amendment would assure that we continue to help out the

true small business entrepreneurs by simply limiting the total

amount of venture capital investment in the company of a SBIR

application to 49 percent of their financial interest. With the adoption of this amendment, this legislation will acknowledge the importance of the influence that venture capital can play in small

business research and development, while still maintaining the integrity of the SBIR program.

Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues on the Subcommittee

to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my

time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gingrey follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE PHIL GINGREY

Mr. Chairman, I have brought forth what I believe is a very common sense and

practical amendment to ensure that Small Business Innovation Research grants actually go to small business applicants.

Put simply, venture capital is important to small business initiatives because it

provides needed financial assistance and credibility to the ideas and products that

possess the potential to be commercialized. However, because these grants are intended for small business research and development, we must ensure that venture

capital does not represent a majority of the financial interest within an SBIR applicant.

The manner in which this bill is currently written only limits a single venture

capital firm from owning 49 percent of the interest of the company applying for the

SBIR grant. This leaves open the possibility that multiple venture capital firms

could own the majority of financial interest within the company. Additionally, in the

worst-case scenario, two venture capital firms could own up to 98 percent of the

holdings of the company.

332

Mr. Chairman, I believe that this goes against the spirit of the SBIR program.

The program is designed to provide assistance to a small business that may have

an idea that can be considered a diamond in the rough, without necessarily having

the financial backing to move its promising idea toward commercialization.

My amendment would ensure that we continue to help out the true small business

entrepreneur by simply limiting the total amount of venture capital investment in

the company of an SBIR applicant to 49 percent of the financial interest. With the

adoption of this amendment, this legislation will acknowledge the importance of the

influence that venture capital can play in small business research and development

while maintaining the integrity of the SBIR program.

Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues on the Subcommittee to support this

amendment and I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman WU. I thank the gentleman.

Chairman GORDON. If the Chairman would yield? Let me just

say that although Dr. Gingrey is not quite as pure as Dr. Ehlers,

I recognize this is not a frivolous amendment by any means and

that it is offered in good spirit. I have some concerns about basing

the amendment on the 1982 report, but I know that, again, this is

legitimate.

I want to also point out that I am uncomfortable with this procedure. I think, you know, we have never taken this—although in

previous Congresses, it has been not uncommon to be, what you

might say, out of regular order, we have not done that in this Congress. I think this is somewhat different in the fact that the minority received the draft on March 19. There were only minor changes,

of which one was a—one of the minority suggestions which was incorporated into it. We got into extensive deliberations with the

Small Business, much of which was, as Dr. Ehlers always recommends, maintaining our jurisdiction and trying to get it right.

And so for that reason, we are going to be going, you know, to the

Floor next week. There is not time to have a Full Committee markup. But I am once again, going to recommend to the Rules Committee that both of Dr. Gingrey’s amendments be made in order,

because I think it is appropriate that we have a more full discussion on this.

Again, with that said, I will yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman WU. If there are no other speakers, I must again regrettably oppose the amendment.

I must say that from the inception of SBIR until an Administrative Law Judge decision, there was no restriction on participation

of venture capital in SBIR applicants, and in my view, the Administrative Law Judge got the law wrong in 2003, in interpreting the

term ‘‘American person.’’ And I view that as a domestic ownership

requirement, but the ALJ said that the term ‘‘person’’ did not include non-real person entities, and that is a determination that

lawyers make as a standard item of statutory interpretation, so

after that, in my view, erroneous interpretation, venture capitalists

have not been permitted to own a majority stake in SBIR applicants, and this bill, in essence, partially, reverses that decision,

and it is a carefully crafted partial reversal of that decision.

No single venture capitalist may own a majority share of an

SBIR applicant, but a consortium of venture capitalists may own

any particular percentage of an applicant, and it is precisely those

applicants which are potentially in a weaker negotiating position

which may have had to give up a large share of their equity in

order to get the application that would be hurt by a restriction on

333

SBIR applications by those entities which have had to give up more

than 50 percent of their ownership in order to get financed by a

venture capitalist.

And just one further point is that after this ALJ decision restricting the type of applicants eligible for SBIR grants, the National

Cancer Institute noted a drop-off in applications and potentially a

decrease in the quality of the applicants. Frequently, the venture

capitalists are backing folks who have a better mousetrap, and a

lot of those folks have become ineligible to apply for venture capital, so for all of those reasons, I am going to oppose the motion.

Mr. EHLERS. I move to strike the last word.

Chairman WU. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is really a difficult

issue, and something that we have discussed in this committee

quite a few times, and I guess my concern is the same as before

that another committee has made this decision and we are simply

accepting it. We have had some very good discussions and good

ideas that have emerged, and this is, I think, a sort of brute-force

approach, I think, to really resolve the problem properly and fairly

for all parties, we need more consideration, more discussion, and

try to come up with an approach that really accomplishes—or accommodates all of the parties involved, and so I am hesitant to—

well, I certainly support the amendment, just because that will

help us approach it better in further discussion, but I think—I recognize there is the possibility that we need some change here, but

why this sudden dramatic change? And I would prefer that we did

it in a more deliberate manner and tried to come up with a solution

that really made more sense.

So I will support the amendment and hope that we can debate

this on the Floor.

Chairman WU. If the gentleman would yield?

Mr. EHLERS. I would be happy to yield.

Chairman WU. In terms of any discussion with other committees,

I would just like to point out that it was this committee which

stood up for the ability of applicants to structure their capital

structure any which way that they wished and not any other committee, and I yield back to the gentleman.

Mr. EHLERS. I will yield back. Thank you.

Chairman GORDON. If the Chairman would yield, just very quickly.

Chairman WU. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

Chairman GORDON. Once again, the reason that—there should be

no misunderstanding that the reason we are running a little bit

late is that the Committee staff negotiated hard and tough and

wouldn’t let it come up next week until we got concessions from the

other committee in question.

Let me also point out that we have got to go through—hopefully,

this will pass on the Floor, and hopefully the Senate will get up

a bill, and that we will go through conference, and that this is a

dialogue that will continue, because we want the best bill that we

can get.

Chairman WU. Is there any further discussion of the amendment?

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, if you would yield?

334

Chairman WU. I have no time to yield, but if——

Mr. EHLERS. I will yield——

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I can move to strike the last word,

then.

Chairman WU. The gentleman is recognized.

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t need five minutes. Basically, I just wanted to, Mr. Chairman, for unanimous consent to submit a couple of letters in support of both amendments

for the record, and one of these, Mr. Chairman, comes from the

U.S. Small Business Administration. I will not read the letter, but

it is a letter from a Steven Preston, the Administrator of the U.S.

Small Business Administration in support of the amendment. And

the other letter in support, Mr. Chairman, is from SBTC, the Small

Business Technology Council, again, both addressed to you, Mr.

Chairman, and myself, in support of both of the amendments that

I have submitted, and I will ask unanimous consent to submit

these for the record in support of the amendment.

Chairman WU. Without objection, so ordered.

[The information follows:]

335

336

337

338

339

340

341

Chairman WU. Is there any further discussion of the amendment? If not, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say

aye. Those opposed, say no.

In the opinion of the Chair, the nos have it.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, with that, I ask for a recorded vote.

Chairman WU. The Clerk will call the roll.

The CLERK. Chairman Wu.

Chairman WU. No.

The CLERK. Chairman Wu votes no.

Ms. Richardson.

Ms. RICHARDSON. No.

The CLERK. Ms. Richardson votes no.

Mr. Matheson.

Mr. MATHESON. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Matheson votes no.

Mr. Mitchell.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Wilson.

Mr. WILSON. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Wilson votes no.

Mr. Chandler.

Mr. CHANDLER. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Chandler votes no.

Mr. Ross.

Mr. ROSS. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Ross votes no.

Mr. Gordon.

Chairman GORDON. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Gordon votes no.

Mr. Gingrey.

Mr. GINGREY. Yes.

The CLERK. Mr. Gingrey votes aye.

Mr. Ehlers.

Mr. EHLERS. Yes.

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers votes aye.

Ms. Biggert.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Adrian Smith.

Mr. SMITH. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Adrian Smith votes aye.

Mr. Broun.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Hall.

[No response.]

Chairman WU. The Clerk will report that tally.

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, three Members vote aye, and eight

Members vote no.

Chairman WU. The amendment is not agreed to.

If we proceed expeditiously, we may be able to get through the

entire bill before—and get to the Floor in time for this series of

votes. The fourth amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson, are you

ready to proceed with your amendment?

Mr. WILSON. I am.

342

Chairman WU. The Clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 5789, offered by Mr. Wilson of

Ohio.

Chairman WU. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the

reading. Without objection, so ordered.

I recognize the gentleman from Ohio for five minutes to explain

his amendment.

Mr. WILSON. As a strong supporter of small business innovation

research and small business technical transfer programs which

serve as a lifeline for many small businesses and innovative businesses, my amendment today would designate nanotechnology-related research as a critical technology in the SBIR—excuse me—

and STTR programs. This would allow companies to receive special

consideration as they apply for federal grants for their work in

nanotechnology.

Today, nanotechnology has an impact on all sectors of our economy, and the work of nanotechnology can be found in electronics

like our cell phones and Blackberries, in our cosmetics, cars, and

medical products. With nanotechnology playing such a fundamental

role in our economy, it is critical that the U.S. investment in this

industry continue to grow.

In my district, at Ohio University, such research is being done

daily. I recently heard from nanoscientists that if the research were

included in this way, it would help their projects to go from the lab

and to migrate to the market. The inclusion of nanotechnology research as a critical technology will help ensure that federal agencies continue to assist and even increase their support for

nanotechnology companies in both SBIR and STTR programs.

I encourage all of my colleagues to support my amendment and

reauthorize the Small Business Innovation Research program.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE WILSON

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to offer.

Thank you. I am here today as a strong supporter of the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technical Transfer (STTR) programs—

which serve as a lifeline for many small and innovative businesses.

My amendment today would designate nanotechnology-related research as a critical technology in the SBIR and STTR programs. This would allow companies to receive special consideration as they apply for federal grants for their work in

nanotechnology. As you know special consideration means that they’re given extra

weight throughout their application process.

Today, nanotechnology has an impact on all sectors of our economy. And the work

of nanotechnology can be found in electronics—like our cell phones and blackberries—in out cosmetics, cars, and medical products. With nanotechnology playing

such a fundamental role in our economy—it is critical that U.S. investment in this

industry continue to grow.

In my district, at Ohio University such research is being done. I recently heard

from some nano-scientists that if their research was included in this way, it would

help their projects in the lab migrate to the market.

The inclusion of nanotechnology research as a critical technology will help ensure

that federal agencies continue to assist and even increase their support for

nanotechnology companies in both the SBIR and STTR programs.

I encourage all of my colleagues to support my amendment and reauthorize the

Small Business Innovation Research Program.

Thank you.

Chairman WU. I thank the gentleman.

343

Is there further discussion on the amendment? If not, the vote

occurs on the amendment.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman?

Chairman WU. The Ranking Member?

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I am sorry. I was a little slow responding there. Mr. Chairman, I am supportive of

nanotechnology research and education initiatives, but I have some

concerns about this particular amendment. As I read the amendment, the SBIR program includes nanotechnology topics in its list

of other priorities, alongside those from the Department of Defense

and the National Critical Technologies Panel. For the STTR programs, nanotechnology endeavors would be singled out as a category of projects that could receive funding, thereby potentially

narrowing the scope of the program, so I am concerned that the

language for these two programs, and especially the STTR, would

carve out a specific benefit for nanotechnology at the expense of

other worthy endeavors.

It is very important to point out that under the current law,

nanotechnology initiatives are not excluded from grant consideration. They compete for funding with other research and development projects, and there is nothing in the underlying bill that detracts from that reality. Nanotechnology research should be considered for grant funding, but it should not, I don’t think, be given

special consideration above other important topics.

Just this morning, the Full Committee held a hearing reauthorizing the National Nanotechnology Initiative. It is my understanding that the bill being drafted will incorporate SBIR and

STTR programs, and certainly I look forward to working with my

friend, Mr. Wilson, the gentleman, to ensure that nanotechnology

programs are advanced across many agencies. So while I support

nanotechnology research and development initiatives, I have concerns that the amendment might unduly advance those concerns

over many other worthy fields of study, so I therefore would reluctantly urge a no vote on this amendment.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gingrey follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE PHIL GINGREY

Mr. Chairman, while I am supportive of nanotechnology research and education

initiatives, I have some concerns about this particular amendment.

As I read the amendment, the SBIR program includes nanotechnology topics in

a list of other priorities alongside those from the Department of Defense and the

National Critical Technologies Panel. For the STTR program, nanotechnology endeavors would be singled out as a category of projects that could receive funding,

thereby potentially narrowing the scope of the program. I am concerned that the

language for these two programs, and especially the STTR program, would carve out

a specific benefit for nanotechnology at the expense of other worthy endeavors.

It is important to point out that under current law, nanotechnology initiatives are

not excluded from grant consideration. They compete for funding with other research and development projects, and nothing in the underlying bill detracts from

that reality. Nanotechnology research should be considered for grant funding, but

it should not be given special consideration above other important topics.

This morning the Full Committee held a hearing in anticipation of reauthorizing

the National Nanotechnology Initiative. It is my understanding that the bill being

drafted will incorporate SBIR and STTR programs. I look forward to working with

the gentleman to ensure that nanotechnology programs are advanced across many

agencies.

So, while I support nanotechnology research and development initiatives, I have

concerns that this amendment might unduly advance those concerns over many

344

other worthy fields of study. Therefore, I would urge a ‘‘NO’’ vote on this amendment.

Chairman WU. Is there further discussion of this amendment?

If no, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say aye.

Those 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 Nebraska, Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith, are you

ready to proceed with your amendment?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Chairman WU. The Clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 5789, offered by Mr. Adrian

Smith of Nebraska.

Chairman WU. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the

reading. Without objection, so ordered.

I recognize the gentleman from Nebraska for five minutes to explain his amendment.

Mr. SMITH. Very briefly, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members

of the Committee. My amendment encourages the federal agencies

to give priority to applications so as to increase the number of

SBIR and STTR award recipients from rural areas.

Firms located in a relatively small number of states have been

successful in obtaining the awards through the program. According

to an ’06 government accountability study, about 70 percent of dollars awarded went to firms in only 10 states. Let me also say that

the rural outreach program contained in these programs sunsetted.

It expired, and certainly, in the rural areas, we need to address the

brain-drain. I don’t want to expound, in the interest of time, on my

full remarks here, but certainly, it is my intention to bring this to

the attention of the Committee and urge the Committee to work together on the brain-drain and urge its adoption. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE ADRIAN SMITH

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,

My amendment would encourage federal agencies give priority to applications so

as to increase the number of SBIR and STTR award recipients from rural areas.

Firms located in a relatively small number of states have been successful in obtaining awards through the SBIR program. According to an April 2006 Government Accountability Office study, about 70 percent of all SBIR awards and dollars awarded

went to firms in 10 states. This leaves many qualified firms in rural areas, such

as high-tech firms in the Third District of Nebraska, at a disadvantage when it

comes to funding for innovative research and development.

In order to assist states experiencing difficulty in obtaining these awards, the

2001 reauthorization of SBIR encouraged SBIR agencies to do a better job of

partnering with states via the creation of the Rural Outreach Program. The Rural

Outreach Program’s primary purpose was to provide federal assistance to support

statewide outreach to small high-tech business located in 25 states that are underrepresented in SBIR awards. This outreach program has expired and rural areas

are once again at a disadvantage in funding for developing commercial technologies.

Unfortunately, many rural states have seen a ‘brain drain’ in recent years. As the

depletion occurs, we lose our most vital economic asset to more populated areas. Responsible policy is needed to retain and grow our workforce to make our rural communities more competitive in the modern economy.

Mr. Chairman, it is my intention today to bring this to the attention of the Committee and urge the Committee to continue working to promote outreach and participation of rural areas in innovative research. I look forward to continuing consideration and work on this important issue.

345

Chairman WU. I thank the gentleman. I commend him for his

amendment and support rural outreach. Is there any further discussion of the amendment?

The Ranking Member?

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to support

the efforts of Mr. Smith. Businesses in rural areas typically have

a harder time getting capital, even when they have a very good

concept, because of the limited numbers of lending institutions or

venture capital firms, so this amendment does not require that

agencies pick one business over another. It simply requires them

to consider rural businesses and how they are represented in the

overall agency awards to increase the number of rural businesses

receiving grants. I think it is a good amendment, Mr. Chairman,

and I urge my colleagues to support it.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gingrey follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE PHIL GINGREY

Mr. Chairman, I want to support the efforts of Mr. Smith. Businesses in rural

areas typically have a harder time getting capital, even when they have a good concept, because of the limited numbers of lending institutions or venture capital firms.

This amendment does not require that agencies pick one business over another; it

simply requires them to consider rural businesses and how they are represented in

the overall agency’s awards to increase the number of rural businesses receiving

grants.

It is a good amendment and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Chairman WU. I thank the gentleman. Are there any further

comments on the amendment? If not, the vote occurs on the

amendment. All in favor, say aye. Those opposed, say no. In the

opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. And the ayes have it and

the amendment is agreed to.

Are there any other amendments?

Hearing none, the vote is on the bill H.R. 5789, the Science and

Technology Innovation Act of 2008, 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 recognize Dr. Gingrey to offer a motion.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Subcommittee favorably report H.R. 5789, as amended, to the Full Committee. Furthermore, I move that staff be instructed to prepare the Subcommittee legislative report, and make necessary technical and

confirming changes to the bill, as amended, in accordance with the

recommendations of the Subcommittee.

Chairman WU. The question is on the motion to report the bill

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

Those opposed, say no. The ayes have it, and the bill is favorably

reported.

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

I want to take this moment to thank staff on both sides for their

very hard work on this bill. Bill Behn, who was a detailee to this

committee, worked hard on this bill. The gentleman sitting next to

me, Mike Quear, has worked tirelessly on this bill. And for my personal staff, Dennis Worden has worked very, very hard on this bill,

and I thank them all very, very much.

And Dr. Gingrey?

346

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, if you will allow me to say one

thing for the staff on the Minority side, I would like to thank them

for their hard work. They really did a great job on this, and I

thank, Mr. Chairman, you as well in running a very fair Subcommittee markup as best you can, and I hope that you and Chairman Gordon will remember to urge the Committee on Rules to

make this a fair an open process and ask for an open rule, and I

thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman WU. I thank the gentleman, and I thank the gentleman for his cooperation, and I will commit to urging that the

Rules Committee take this up as a full bill under some form of

rule, and I want to thank the Members for their attendance. This

concludes our Subcommittee markup. Thank you all very much.

[Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(347)

Appendix:

H.R. 5789, SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS, AMENDMENT ROSTER

348

349

350

351

352

353

354

355

356

357

358

359

360

361

362

363

364

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF

H.R. 5789, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

INNOVATION ACT OF 2008

Section 1. Short Title Science and Technology Innovation Act of 2008

TITLE I—REAUTHORIZATION OF PROGRAMS

Section 101. Extension of SBIR and STTR Programs Extends the termination

date of the SBIR and STTR programs to 2010.

TITLE II—FEDERAL INNOVATION INVESTMENTS

Section 201. SBIR Cap Increase Increases the amount of research funds devoted

to small business concerns by requiring federal agencies with SBIR programs to expend not less than 3.0 percent of extramural research funds towards SBIR.

Section 202. STTR Cap Increase Increases the amount of research funds devoted

to small business concerns by requiring federal agencies with STTR programs to expend not less than 0.6 percent of extramural research funds towards STTR.

Section 203. Adjustments in SBIR and STTR Award Levels Increases the

award levels for the SBIR and STTR Programs to $300,000 for Phase I and

$2,200,000 for Phase II, and limits the awards to no more than the specified maximum amounts. Increases program flexibility by allowing a small business that has

received an award in the SBIR or STTR programs to receive a subsequent phase

award in either the SBIR or STTR programs; allowing a small business to submit

an SBIR Phase II application without first completing a Phase I award; and allowing a small business to submit an STTR Phase II application without first completing a Phase I award.

Section 204. Majority Equity Investment in SBIR and STTR Firms Makes eligible small businesses that are backed by venture capital firms and defines eligibility requirements.

TITLE III—UTILIZATION SUPPORT

Section 301. Agency Databases to Support Program Evaluation Requires that

the database of Program Awardees required under the current Act include the additional information of ownership structure of award recipient at award and after

completion of the award period and requires that the database be updated annually

for five years. Requires that each agency database be designed to be accessible to

other federal agencies required to establish SBIR/STTR programs.

Section 302. Agency Databases to Support Technology Utilization Requires

each federal agency to create and maintain a technology utilization database that

is available to the public.

Section 303. Interagency Policy Committee Establishes an Interagency SBIR/

STTR Policy Committee comprised of representatives from each federal agency with

SBIR/STTR and names the OSTP and NIST Directors as co-chairs. Requires the

Interagency Policy Committee to make policy and report to Congress its review and

recommendations regarding federal agency flexibility, commercialization assistance,

and initiatives to address funding gaps.

TITLE IV—OUTREACH AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

Section 401. Use of Program Funds for Administrative Costs Allows federal

agencies to use no more than three percent of its SBIR budget for administrative

expenses.

Section 402. SBIR Discretionary Technical Assistance Allows federal agencies

to select a vendor to assist award recipients to develop and commercialize new products for a term not to exceed three years. Increases the amount an agency can provide for technical assistance to $5000 for Phase I and $8000 for Phase II.

TITLE V—IMPLEMENTATION

Section 501. Conforming Amendments to the SBIR and STTR Policy Directives Requires the Director of the Small Business Administration to promulgate

amendments to the SBIR and STTR Policy Directives to conform to the Act within

180 days.

365

Section 502. National Research Council SBIR Study Removes the requirement

of the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2000 that the National Research Council provide an updated report.

366

367

368

369

370

371

372

373

PROCEEDINGS OF THE BUSINESS MEETING

TO CONSIDER AUTHORIZATION OF A SUBPOENA FOR DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY’S FUTUREGEN

PROJECT

THURSDAY, JUNE 26, 2008

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:10 p.m., in Room

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brad Miller

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

Chairman MILLER. This meeting has now come to order. It will

be a very short meeting just to advise everyone here of the status.

We were prepared today to have the Committee consider issuing

a subpoena for documents pertaining to the decision to end the

FutureGen project, what was proposed to be a $1.8 billion project

that was specifically mentioned in three different State of the

Union addresses. That was somewhat precipitously canceled. Obviously a good many Members of Congress were more than a little

curious about that decision. The Subcommittee staff has been involved in discussions with the Department of Energy and with the

White House for some considerable time now, had reviewed several

documents without taking copies, that was the understanding, and

determined that there were at least three documents that the Committee really did need to see to understand the decision for this

committee, for the Full Committee to meet probably in September

and consider the decision on FutureGen. I have within the last five

minutes been assured by the White House General Counsel’s Office

by Emmett Flood that the three specific documents they have now

reviewed and do not have any objection to providing this subcommittee a copy of. Mr. Sensenbrenner, there was one other document, a strategic plan, and that was provided, although that had

been promised some considerable time ago. Our subcommittee staff

just got that this morning within the last couple of hours. Mr. Sensenbrenner had also agreed to call the Department of Energy to encourage them to provide that document if it was not provided. The

document that we have gotten, however, is a draft so I am hoping

there will be some other discussions to make sure we got the right

version, the final version. But based upon the recent, recent being

within the last 20 minutes, showing of good faith, we will accept,

for now at least, that we will get that document forthwith, not

promptly but forthwith, and in fact, we have been promised all the

remaining documents, which are only, you know, maybe eight

pages collectively, by tomorrow. And with that understanding, we

will assume that everyone is acting in good faith until that assumption is disproven and——

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Will the Chairman yield?

374

Chairman MILLER. The Chairman yields to Mr. Sensenbrenner.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Let me say that I think that the representation that the Chairman has just recounted does show good faith

on the part of the White House. And earlier today before this was

wrapped up, I offered to call Secretary Bodman up suggesting that

the best thing to do is to allow the Committee to review the documents that were in question. It appears now that that offer does

not need to be taken up, but it still is on the table.

Let me make one other observation. This committee has not

issued a subpoena since 1992. I think we have gone through four

Chairs, including myself, that has not found a need to issue a subpoena on anything within the oversight jurisdiction of the Committee on Science and Technology and its predecessor committees.

Should we issue a subpoena, the Administration will resist it; because they have resisted every other subpoena that has been issued

by every other committee in this Congress. And that is going to

mean that we won’t have a chance to review this document during

the life of this Congress because an attempt to enforce the subpoena is going to take a while to wind its way through the courts.

So accepting the good faith on the part of the White House and the

good faith on the part of the Majority and its staff, I think that not

issuing or authorizing a subpoena at this time will say that we are

happy to meet the Administration halfway. So far there is good

faith that is being expressed on both sides, and if that continues,

we will be able to put this matter to rest. I thank the Chair for

yielding.

Chairman MILLER. And thank you, Mr. Sensenbrenner, and provided that sweet reason does continue to prevail, perhaps we don’t

have to issue any subpoenas.

Does anyone else wish to be heard? On that happy conciliatory

note, the meeting is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 1:14 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ