Ralph Hall

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. In addition to being too narrowly focused, I do not believe this type of activity is in the spirit of what STEM programs really should do at the department. Therefore, I oppose the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Most of the 13 amendments rolled into this en bloc package are minor and noncontroversial, and we are generally supportive. I do, however, want to make comments regarding potential issues with two of these amendments: Cardoza amendment No. 2 and Heinrich amendment No. 59. I note some concern regarding the Heinrich amendment included in this en bloc, which makes Federal laboratories eligible grant recipients under the regional innovation cluster programs. While it would be appropriate for entities such as DOE national laboratories to compete for and receive the type of funding called for in the clusters program, the definition of ``Federal laboratories'' goes far beyond this. It could include almost any agency laboratory and essentially result in taxpayer funding from one Federal agency being redistributed to a different Federal agency. There are a host of problems with this, but first and foremost, it is clearly not an ideal way to fund innovation. I want to note these concerns regarding the amendment for the record, although I do not plan to oppose the entire en bloc that includes this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Chair, the Cardoza amendment directs NIST to carry out a green manufacturing and construction initiative. While I understand NIST already funds some research in this area, I do have a concern about the intent of some of the language in the amendment. Accordingly, I have asked that the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) engage in a colloquy to clarify this for the record. Paragraph 2 of this amendment directs NIST to advance the ``creation of an information infrastructure to communicate sustainability information about suppliers.'' It is accurate, I think, to say that this language does not mean that NIST should characterize specific suppliers' sustainability practices but, rather, will simply ``make information available to manufacturers so they can make informed and science-based decisions to assess their products and supply chain.'' I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HALL of Texas. I thank the gentleman. The Cardoza amendment directs NIST to carry out a green manufacturing and construction initiative. While I understand NIST already funds some research in this area, I do not have a concern about the intent. I think the colloquy has been appropriate. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Chairman, I reserve my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Chairman, I would like simply to conclude by reiterating some key points about H.R. 5116, the America COMPETES Act of 2010. I've said on numerous occasions that we should support strengthening investments in basic research and science, technology, engineering and mathematics education. National investments in basic R&D and STEM education, together with sound economic policies form the policy basis of what's necessary for the country to truly remain competitive in the future. I can't support this bill, however, because it calls for excessive spending levels, numerous new and duplicative programs, ineffective oversight and positive shifts that could lead to the government picking ``winners and losers.'' It's for these reasons that the National Taxpayers Union and the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste have come out against this bill. I would urge Members to vote ``no'' on H.R. 5116. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Chairwoman, I rise to claim time in opposition to this amendment, although I do not oppose it.

Mr. HALL of Texas. In fact, I'm in strong support of the amendment, as it reemphasizes language that I had accepted at the full committee markup and is now included in title VII. In my opinion, we can't do enough to assist our veterans who are returning to school after putting their lives on the line so that all of us can enjoy the freedoms that we have in this country. Likewise, I remain committed to helping those institutions of higher education that are also going above and beyond the norm in helping our veterans receive their education. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. HALL of Texas. I am, in its current form.

Mr. HALL of Texas. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a few points about the motion to recommit before I hand it over to the gentlewoman from Kansas. The motion to recommit addresses the biggest concern I, and many of the Members on this side of the aisle, have with the legislation, which is the excessive spending. It will address this issue by reducing the authorization to 3 years instead of 5, striking the new programs in the bill, and reducing the spending down to the fiscal year 2010 appropriated levels. It also would prohibit Federal funds from being used by Federal employees to view, download, or exchange pornography, including child pornography. Additionally, it will ensure that the institutions that we're giving Federal funding to through this act will repay the Federal Government by allowing the military onto their campuses for recruitment. Finally, the motion to recommit will invest in an issue that's very dear to our hearts, our Nation's disabled veterans. This motion would ensure that our colleges and universities that make STEM programs available to our disabled veterans and those schools chartered to serve disabled veterans receive the same special consideration afforded to other schools serving the underrepresented populations. A much broader version of this language was unanimously accepted at the committee level. A very watered down version that does not stand the chance of helping a single veteran is included in the manager's amendment. And this compromise language filed at Rules was not made in order for consideration. I cannot for the life of me understand why there's a resistance to assisting the Nation's disabled veterans. Of the 3.1 million disabled veterans in this country, over 50,000 are currently training to receive undergraduate degrees and an additional 2,800 participate in graduate school programs. The schools serving these men and women deserve the same consideration as those assisting other underrepresented populations. But there's not one school in the Nation that would meet the standards created by the language in the manager's amendment. I don't buy the argument that this special consideration will open a floodgate of eligible schools, providing no guarantee that the disabled veterans will actually benefit from the funding. There are already several hundred well-known and -respected schools that qualify for special consideration under a variety of statutes for underrepresented populations with no guarantee that a particular grant would benefit a designated group. Why shouldn't those schools helping our disabled veterans have the same consideration? Frankly, it should not matter how many disabled veterans a school enrolls. These fine young men and women, who every one of us will see over Memorial Day, have made tremendous personal sacrifices for us. The Speaker rightfully has us bow our heads in silence once a month to honor them. We should also be lifting our chins and our praise and our gratitude to those who cross foreign borders to ensure that everyone within our own are free. This is but a small way we can show our appreciation not only to them, but to the schools that are reaching out to them. Now I yield to Ms. Jenkins.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I do not intend to oppose it.

Mr. HALL of Texas. The manager's amendment reflects many things, from technical changes, recommendations from outside groups, agreements reached between our side of the aisle and theirs, and items that as the majority they're able to add unilaterally. I want to thank the chairman for working with our Members on agreed- upon changes between the full committee markup and now, including the non-Federal matching requirements under the Noyce Scholarship Program, clarifying language on STEM Industry Internships program and the NSF Innovation Prize pilot program, reinstating the cap on the maximum number of ARPA-E employees, and instituting a prohibition on lobbying in the act. I only wish we could have continued the good, open dialogue this past week, particularly with our concerns. I remain disappointed that the veterans with disabilities language that was agreed to unanimously by voice vote at the full committee markup has been greatly modified in the manager's amendment. I believe if the chairman is sincere he will continue to work with us on this language as we move forward because I do strongly feel that the language in this amendment greatly weakens the intent of the underlying bill. I also want to express my concern regarding the amendment's modification of language to the new loan guarantee program created by the bill. Specifically, the amendment strikes language in the underlying bill directing the Attorney General to take appropriate actions to recover unpaid principal and interest on loans that go into default. Removal of that language is a major concern as it's key to protecting taxpayers from bad loans. Given the events of the last couple of years I'd hope that the government's beginning to learn something about bad loans. But I'm concerned that with the removal of this very standard provision that we could be setting the loan guarantee program up for guaranteed failure. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the en bloc amendments before us, although I do not intend to oppose them. All 11 of the amendments are noncontroversial, and we're generally supportive. I will not oppose these. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment. The amendment would simply strike title V of this bill, which creates bigger government and calls for more spending in areas that go well beyond research and development and authorize potentially inappropriate and duplicative programs. In particular, I want to note our strong objection to the Regional Innovation Clusters program that's created by title V. Not only does it fund activity well beyond R&D, the language is so loosely written that virtually any type of industry would be eligible to undertake virtually any type of activity. The bill would reduce funding available for high priority R&D programs at the Department of Commerce, such as those at NIST. I strongly support this amendment and urge its adoption. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to support this amendment. The amendment would simply strike title V of this bill, which creates bigger government and calls for more spending. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to this amendment, although I do not intend to oppose it.