Congressional Hearings
PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP ON H.R. 1224, NIST CYBERSECURITY FRAMEWORK, ASSESSMENT, AND AUDITING ACT OF 2017
Congressional Hearings
SuDoc ClassNumber: Y 4.SCI 2
Congress: House of Representatives
CHRG-115hhrg35710
| AUTHORITYID | CHAMBER | TYPE | COMMITTEENAME |
|---|---|---|---|
| hssy00 | H | S | Committee on Science, Space, and Technology |
[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COMMITTEE MARKUPS OF H.R. 1224,
H.R. 1430, H.R. 1431, H.R. 2105, H.R. 2809,
H.R. 2763, H.R. 1159, H.R. 4376, H.R. 4377,
H.R. 4378, H.R. 4375, H.R. 4323, H.R. 4254,
H.R. 3397, H.R. 4675, H.R. 5345, H.R. 5346,
H.R. 5086, H.R. 5509, H.R. 5503, H.R. 5905,
H.R. 5907, H.R. 5906, H.R. 6227, H.R. 6229,
H.R. 6226, H.R. 6398, S. 141, AND H.R. 6468
=======================================================================
COMPILATION OF MARKUPS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS
----------
2017-2018
----------
Serial No. CP: 115-1
----------
Volume 1
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
COMPILATION OF MARKUPS, VOLUME 1
COMMITTEE MARKUPS OF H.R. 1224,
H.R. 1430, H.R. 1431, H.R. 2105, H.R. 2809,
H.R. 2763, H.R. 1159, H.R. 4376, H.R. 4377,
H.R. 4378, H.R. 4375, H.R. 4323, H.R. 4254,
H.R. 3397, H.R. 4675, H.R. 5345, H.R. 5346,
H.R. 5086, H.R. 5509, H.R. 5503, H.R. 5905,
H.R. 5907, H.R. 5906, H.R. 6227, H.R. 6229,
H.R. 6226, H.R. 6398, S. 141, AND H.R. 6468
=======================================================================
COMPILATION OF MARKUPS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS
__________
2017-2018
__________
Serial No. CP: 115-1
__________
Volume 1
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
35-710 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DANA ROHRABACHER, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
BILL POSEY, Florida AMI BERA, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
STEPHEN KNIGHT, California DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
BRIAN BABIN, Texas JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia JERRY McNERNEY, California
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
GARY PALMER, Alabama PAUL TONKO, New York
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida BILL FOSTER, Illinois
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona MARK TAKANO, California
ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana
RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
------
Subcommittee on Energy
HON. HON. RANDY K. WEBER, Texas, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma ZOE LOFGREN, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky JERRY MCNERNEY, California
STEPHEN KNIGHT, California PAUL TONKO, New York
GARY PALMER, Alabama BILL FOSTER, Illinois
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida MARK TAKANO, California
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
------
Subcommittee on Environment
HON. JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma, Chair
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
Wisconsin DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
RANDY WEBER, Texas AMI BERA, California
JOHN MOOLENAAR, Michigan MARK TAKANO, California
BRIAN BABIN, Texas BILL FOSTER, Illinois
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
GARY PALMER, Alabama
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
(ii)
Subcommittee on Oversight
HON. RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana, Chair
BILL POSEY, Florida DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky JERRY MCNERNEY, California
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana
RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
_________________________________________________________________
Subcommittee on Research and Technology
HON. BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia, Chair
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
STEPHEN KNIGHT, California JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida AMI BERA, California
ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
_____________________________________________________________
Subcommittee on Space
HON. BRIAN BABIN, Texas, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma AMI BERA, California
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama, ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
BILL POSEY, Florida MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
STEVE KNIGHT, California
Brian Babin, Texas
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
(iii)
C O N T E N T S
2017- 2018
Page
H.R. 1224--NIST Cybersecurity Framework, Assessment, and Auditing
Act of 2017
Proceedings of the markup held by the Full Committee, March
1, 2017.................................................... 1
H.R. 1430--Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017,
or the HONEST Act
Proceedings of the markup held by the Full Committee, March
9, 2017.................................................... 39
H.R. 1431--EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017
Proceedings of the markup held by the Full Committee, March
9, 2017.................................................... 63
H.R. 2105--NIST Small Business Cybersecurity Act of 2017
Proceedings of the markup held by the Full Committee, May 2,
2017....................................................... 91
H.R. 2809--American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act of 2017
Proceedings of the markup held by the Full Committee, June 8,
2017....................................................... 109
H.R. 2763--Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business
Technology Transfer Improvements Act of 2017
Proceedings of the markup held by the Full Committee, June
22, 2017................................................... 247
H.R. 1159--United States and Israel Space Cooperation Act
Proceedings of the markup held by the Full Committee,
September 28, 2017......................................... 305
H.R. 4376--Department of Energy Research Infrastructure Act of
2017
Proceedings of the markup held by the Full Committee,
November 15, 2017.......................................... 315
H.R. 4377--Accelerating American Leadership in Science Act of
2017
Proceedings of the markup held by the Full Committee,
November 15, 2017.......................................... 322
H.R. 4378--Nuclear Energy Research Infrastructure Act of 2017
Proceedings of the markup held by the Full Committee,
November 15, 2017.......................................... 327
H.R. 4375--STEM Research and Education Effectiveness and
Transparency Act
Proceedings of the markup held by the Full Committee,
November 15, 2017.......................................... 332
H.R. 4323--Supporting Veterans in STEM Careers Act
Proceedings of the markup held by the Full Committee,
November 15, 2017.......................................... 334
H.R. 4254--Women in Aerospace Education Act
Proceedings of the markup held by the Full Committee,
November 15, 2017.......................................... 338
H.R. 3397--Building Blocks of STEM Act
Proceedings of the markup held by the Full Committee,
November 15, 2017.......................................... 343
(iv)
H.R. 4675--Low-Dose Radiation Research Act of 2017
Proceedings of the markup held by the Full Committee, January
10, 2018................................................... 397
H.R. 5345--American Leadership in Space Technology and Advanced
Rocketry Act
Proceedings of the markup held by the Full Committee, March
22, 2018................................................... 415
H.R. 5346--Commercial Space Support Vehicle Act
Proceedings of the markup held by the Full Committee, March
22, 2018................................................... 421
H.R. 5086--Innovators to Entrepreneurs Act of 2018
Proceedings of the markup held by the Full Committee, March
22, 2018................................................... 422
PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE
MARKUP ON H.R. 1224,
NIST CYBERSECURITY FRAMEWORK,
ASSESSMENT, AND AUDITING ACT OF 2017
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 2017
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar
Smith [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Chairman Smith. The Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recess at any time, and without objection, the Chair is
authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any time.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 2(e) and House Rule
112(2)(h)(4), the Chair announces that he may postpone roll
call votes.
Today we meet to consider H.R. 1224, the NIST Cybersecurity
Framework, Assessment, and Auditing Act of 2017. I recognize
myself for an opening statement.
In the last Congress, the Science Committee held a dozen
hearings related to oversight and policy aspects of Federal
cybersecurity issues. The hearings included the examination of
data breaches at the Office of Personnel Management, the
Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation. These hearings underscored the need for a robust
approach to protect U.S. cybersecurity capabilities.
Two weeks ago, the Research and Technology Subcommittee
held a hearing on this issue where experts testified on
recommendations in two recent reports that involve the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The bill we
consider today, H.R. 1224, the NIST Cybersecurity Framework,
Assessment, and Auditing Act of 2017, implements key ideas and
strengthens Federal Government cybersecurity. I thank
Representative Abraham for his initiative on this legislation.
H.R. 1224 ensures that NIST remains a global leader in
cybersecurity knowledge, scientific standards-setting, and
research and analysis of Federal agencies' cybersecurity
readiness. This commonsense legislation takes advantage of
NIST's unique capabilities to both develop cybersecurity
standards and guidelines, which NIST does now, and go further
and evaluate and assess the extent of Federal agencies'
compliance with them. Creating more working groups and
guidelines without a determination of whether anyone is using
them or using them correctly does not protect our cyber
infrastructure. NIST has the experts who develop the standards
and guidelines under the Federal Information Security
Modernization Act, which apply to the Federal Government.
NIST experts also developed a Cybersecurity Framework,
through collaborations between government and private sector
that are accepted and used by many private organizations to
address and manage their cybersecurity risks in a cost-
effective way.
H.R. 1224 directs NIST to promote the Cybersecurity
Framework by providing Federal agencies with guidance on how to
implement it. Who better to determine if an agency is following
these recognized standards than NIST?
We do not make NIST an enforcement agency. The bill does
not give the agency authority to exact fines, issue
injunctions, or pursue further proceedings beyond assessing,
auditing, and reporting. NIST's assessment, audits, and the
resulting reports are for Federal agencies only and will not
affect the private sector.
We recognize NIST will need resources to accomplish this
work, and we will address that in a NIST authorization bill
later this year.
The Federal Government collects personally identifiable
information about every person in our country. Unfortunately,
the Federal Government is the world capital of cyber
insecurity.
Two years ago, Chinese hackers broke into OPM's computer
systems and stole the personally identifiable information and
sensitive background check information on approximately 26
million people, including fingerprint records of 5.6 million
individuals. Chinese cyber-criminals also repeatedly hacked and
may still be hacking the FDIC computer network. The FDIC hacks
threaten everything from large-scale manipulation of our entire
financial system to looting individuals' checking, savings, and
retirement accounts.
At the IRS, 2016 tax-refund fraud is projected to set a new
record at $21 billion. An enterprising crook needs only a name,
date of birth and a Social Security number to enter made-up W-2
information, submit a fraudulent return, and receive a refund
from the IRS within 30 days. Unless we take new and aggressive
steps to prevent rapidly increasing cyber-attacks by foreign
criminals and unfriendly governments, our economy and national
security are at risk. Not doing this is a vote for the status
quo, which will allow continued security breaches to occur.
Representative Abraham's bill serves an important purpose
and expands our ability to protect Americans from cybersecurity
attacks. I again thank him for his work and I urge my
colleagues to support H.R. 1224.
Prepared Statement of Chairman Smith
Good morning and welcome to today's Full Committee mark up
of an important and timely bill.
In the last Congress, the Science Committee held a dozen
hearings related to oversight and policy aspects of federal
cybersecurity issues.
The hearings included the examination of data breaches at
the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
(FDIC).
These hearings underscored the need for a robust approach
to protect U.S. cybersecurity capabilities.
Two weeks ago, the Research and Technology Subcommittee
held a hearing on this issue where experts testified on
recommendations in two recent reports that involve the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
The bill we consider today, H.R. 1224, the NIST
Cybersecurity Framework, Assessment, and Auditing Act of 2017,
implements key ideas and strengthens federal government
cybersecurity. I thank Representative Abraham for his
initiative on this legislation.
H.R. 1224 ensures that NIST remains a global leader in
cybersecurity knowledge, scientific standards-setting, and
research and analysis of federal agencies' cyber security
readiness.
This common sense legislation takes advantage of NIST's
unique capabilities to both develop cybersecurity standards and
guidelines, which NIST does now, and go further and evaluate
and assess the extent of federal agencies' compliance with
them.
Creating more working groups and guidelines without a
determination of whether anyone is using them or using them
correctly does not protect our cyber infrastructure.
NIST has the experts who develop the standards and
guidelines under the Federal Information Security Modernization
Act, which apply to the federal government.
NIST experts also developed a Cybersecurity Framework,
through collaborations between government and private sector,
that are accepted and used by many private organizations to
address and manage their cybersecurity risks in a costeffective
way.
H.R. 1224 directs NIST to promote the Cybersecurity
Framework by providing federal agencies with guidance on how to
implement it. Who better to determine if an agency is following
these recognized standards than NIST?
We do not make NIST an enforcement agency. The bill does
not give the agency authority to exact fines, issue
injunctions, or pursue further proceedings beyond assessing,
auditing, and reporting.
NIST's assessment, audits, and the resulting reports are
for federal agencies only and will not affect the private
sector.
We recognize NIST will need resources to accomplish this
work. We will address that in a NIST authorization bill this
year.
The federal government collects personally identifiable
information about every person in our country. Unfortunately,
the federal government is the world capital of cyber
insecurity.
Two years ago, Chinese hackers broke into OPM's computer
systems and stole the personally identifiable information and
sensitive background check information of approximately 26
million people, including fingerprint records of 5.6 million
individuals.
Chinese cyber-criminals also repeatedly hacked--and may
still be hacking--the FDIC computer network. The FDIC hacks
threaten everything from large-scale manipulation of our entire
financial system to looting individuals' checking, savings, and
retirement accounts.
At the IRS, 2016 tax-refund fraud is projected to set a new
record at $21 billion. An enterprising crook needs only a name,
date of birth and a Social Security number to enter made-up W-2
information, submit a fraudulent return, and receive a refund
from the IRS within 30 days.
Unless we take new and aggressive steps to prevent rapidly
increasing cyber-attacks by foreign criminals and unfriendly
governments, our economy and national security are at risk.
Not doing this is a vote for the status quo, which will
allow continued security breaches to occur.
Representative Abraham's bill serves an important purpose
and expands our ability to protect Americans from cybersecurity
attacks. I again thank him for his work and I urge my
colleagues to support H.R. 1224.
Chairman Smith. That concludes my opening statement, and
the gentlewoman from Texas, Eddie Bernice Johnson, the Ranking
Member, is recognized for hers.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I understand and sympathize with the Chairman's desire to
move cybersecurity legislation. Cybersecurity is a critically
important topic, and one that invites significant press
attention.
We had a good hearing before the Research and Technology
Subcommittee just 2 weeks ago, during which we heard many good
recommendations from widely respected experts. Some of those
recommendations fell within our Committee's jurisdiction, and
others did not. I do remember the panel unanimously praising
NIST's role in cybersecurity. I also remember discussion about
developing metrics for the adoption of NIST's Cybersecurity
Framework. Witnesses also discussed requiring Federal agencies
to incorporate the Framework into their information security
programs.
I can see where Mr. Abraham has attempted to incorporate
some aspects of those recommendations into his legislation.
However, I specifically recall GAO's recommendation that the
Department of Homeland Security, and not NIST, carry out
surveys and assessments of the adoption and effectiveness of
the Cybersecurity Framework. NIST itself has steadfastly
maintained that they are the wrong agency to do it, and not
just because of limited resources. I do not remember a single
witness or a single expert recommendation suggesting that OSTP
should be given any role in evaluation or oversight of
cybersecurity in the private sector or the Federal Government.
Perhaps if we substituted OMB or DHS for OSTP everywhere in
this bill, it might make more sense.
The Majority has inserted an entirely new agency into a
policy matter in which they have no expertise and no business
being a part of. In doing so, the bill also duplicates
authorities and responsibilities clearly assigned to OMB and
DHS in current law.
Finally, and speaking to what may be the strangest part of
this bill, I do not remember any expert recommending that NIST
be given the responsibility to conduct annual cybersecurity
audits of other agencies. NIST is not an auditing agency. They
have no such history, expertise, or capacity. They are a
standards and technology agency.
In addition, a single FISMA audit costs between a few
hundred thousand dollars to a couple of million dollars,
depending on the size and mission of the agency. Nowhere in
this bill do we provide NIST with the tens of millions of
dollars of additional funding to become the cybersecurity
auditing agency of the Federal Government. This is a massive
unfunded mandate levied on an agency which is already over
tasked.
Moreover, current law already assigns this very
responsibility to agency Inspectors General. And no expert I
know of has questioned the quality or integrity of the
Interrogatories' work. In fact, IGs know and understand their
own agencies' business operations and information systems
infrastructure better than NIST ever will. In short, I remain
thoroughly baffled by this proposal in the legislation before
us today.
Mr. Chairman, I have said this before, and I will say it
again here. I stand ready to collaborate and cooperate with you
on cybersecurity legislation and oversight. We've been able to
do so in the past, including for the Cybersecurity Enhancement
Act of 2014. However, the bill before us today has a number of
controversial new elements which were clearly not vetted with
the cybersecurity community or the Administration. I will not
support passage today of legislation which will undermine the
very agency we are tasking with keeping our cyber
infrastructure secure.
I would hope that after this markup, the Majority will take
the time to address the concerns that have already been raised
in the short time this bill has been publicly available.
I thank you, and yield back.
Prepared Statement of Ms. Johnson
I understand and sympathize with the Chairman's desire to
move cybersecurity legislation. Cybersecurity is a critically
important topic, and one that invites significant press
attention. We had a good hearing before the Research &
Technology Subcommittee just two weeks ago, during which we
heard many good recommendations from widely respected experts.
Some of those recommendations fell within our Committee's
jurisdiction, others did not.
I do remember the panel unanimously praising NIST's role in
cybersecurity. I also remember discussion about developing
metrics for the adoption of NIST's Cybersecurity Framework.
Witnesses also discussed requiring Federal agencies to
incorporate the Framework into their information security
programs.
I can see where Mr. Abraham has attempted to incorporate
some aspects of those recommendations into his legislation.
However, I specifically recall GAO's recommendation that the
Department of Homeland Security, and not NIST, carry out
surveys and assessments of the adoption and effectiveness of
the Cybersecurity Framework. NIST itself has steadfastly
maintained that they are the wrong agency to do it, and not
just because of limited resources.
I do not remember a single witness, or a single expert
recommendation suggesting that OSTP should be given any role in
evaluation or oversight of cybersecurity in the private sector
or the Federal government. Perhaps if we substituted OMB or DHS
for OSTP everywhere in this bill, it might make more sense. The
Majority has inserted an entirely new agency into a policy
matter in which they have no expertise and no business being a
part of. In doing so, the bill also duplicates authorities and
responsibilities clearly assigned to OMB and DHS in current
law.
Finally, and speaking to what may be the strangest part of
this bill, I do not remember any expert ever recommending that
NIST be given the responsibility to conduct annual
cybersecurity audits of other agencies. NIST is not an auditing
agency.
They have no such history, expertise, or capacity. They are
a standards and technology agency. In addition, a single FISMA
audit costs between a few hundred thousand to a couple of
million dollars, depending on the size and mission of the
agency. Nowhere in this bill do we provide NIST with the tens
of millions of dollars of additional funding to become the
cybersecurity auditing agency of the Federal government. This
is a massive unfunded mandate levied on an agency which is
already over tasked. Moreover, current law already assigns this
very responsibility to agency inspectors general. And no expert
I know of has questioned the quality or integrity of the IGs'
work. In fact, IGs know and understand their own agencies'
business operations and information systems infrastructure
better than NIST ever will. In short, I remain thoroughly
baffled by this proposal in the legislation before us today.
Mr. Chairman, I've said this before, and I will say it
again here. I stand ready to collaborate and cooperate with you
on cybersecurity legislation and oversight. We've been able to
do so in the past, including for the Cybersecurity Enhancement
Act of 2014. However, the bill before us today has a number of
controversial new elements which were clearly not vetted with
the cybersecurity community or the Administration. I will not
support passage today of legislation which will undermine the
very agency we are tasking with keeping our cyber
infrastructure secure.
I would hope that after this markup, the Majority will take
the time to address the concerns that have already been raised
in the short time this bill has been publicly available.
I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 1224, the NIST
Cybersecurity Framework, Assessment, and Auditing Act of 2017,
and the clerk will report the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 1224, a bill to amend the National
Institute of Standards and Technology Act to implement a
framework, assessment and audits for improving United States
cybersecurity.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the bill is considered
as read and open for amendment at any point.
I'll recognize the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Abraham, for an
opening statement.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
H.R. 1224, the NIST Cybersecurity Framework, Assessment,
and Auditing Act of 2017, is an extension of my ongoing
interest over the state of our Nation's cybersecurity.
Hardly a month goes by without some news of a cyber-attack
leading to the successful breach of millions of Americans'
financial, health, or other personal data.
During an informative Research and Technology Subcommittee
hearing 2 weeks ago, a witness reporting the U.S. Government
Accountability Office (GAO) testified, and I quote, ``Cyber-
based intrusions and attacks on Federal systems and systems
supporting our Nation's critical infrastructure, such as
communications and financial services, are evolving and
becoming more sophisticated.'' The GAO witness also explained
that ``over the past several years, GAO has made about 2,500
recommendations to Federal agencies to enhance their
information security programs and controls. As of February
2017, about 1,000 recommendations had not been implemented.''
These are not pieces of information to be taken lightly.
Last fall, this Committee marked up a bill I introduced that
reflected a need for accountability, responsibility, and
transparency by Federal agencies relative to their
cybersecurity capabilities. The bill under discussion today
takes the same general approach as last year's bill, which the
Committee approved by voice vote. H.R. 1224 also reflects
recommendations from two recent reports that were the focus of
the Subcommittee hearing 2 weeks ago, and I'll give you some
highlights of that bill that include: Amending NIST's mission
to emphasize the principle that expanding cyber threats require
the engineering of security from the beginning of a system's
life cycle; promoting Federal implementation of the NIST
Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity--
that's the Framework portion; establishing a Federal working
group to develop quantifiable metrics to help Federal agencies
analyze and assess the effectiveness of the Framework in
protecting their information and information systems; directing
NIST to complete an initial assessment of the cybersecurity
preparedness of Federal agencies; directing NIST to initiate
individual cybersecurity audits of each agency to assess the
extent to which they are meeting the information security
standards developed by the Institute; and last, providing
agencies and Congress with an audit report.
The Committee's jurisdiction over NIST provides it the
ability to present the Institute with the flexibility to expand
its functions in an effort to address the cybersecurity
emergency facing our Nation. It is to NIST's credit that the
Committee regards the Institute as part of the solution, and
not the problem.
H.R. 1224 reflects the Committee's resolve to provide
Federal agencies all the tools it may be able to use to help
remedy the Federal Government's cybersecurity shortcomings.
It's easy to sit back and State, with the benefit of NIST's
reputation as an exemplatory agency, that we should not
consider changing the way the Institute operates because of
what might happen or how the Institute's reputation or
effectiveness might suffer.
But the current state of affairs do not suggest that the
best way forward is to keep taking the path of least
resistance. Much as the nature of cyber-attacks continue to
evolve to reflect the sophistication of the cyber criminals, we
in the government must also be willing to evolve to protect
Americans and our government. That evolution starts with
thinking outside the box instead of maintaining a business-as-
usual approach.
H.R. 1224 establishes the Committee's mark on a very
important issue. It sets the tone for future cybersecurity
discussions by taking some first steps to strengthen Federal
cybersecurity defenses, and holding the Federal agencies
accountable through regular cyber audits.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield
back.
Prepared Statement of Mr. Abraham
H.R. 1224, the NIST Cybersecurity Framework, Assessment,
and Auditing Act of 2017 is an extension of my ongoing interest
over the state of our nation's cybersecurity.
Hardly a month goes by without some news of a cyber-attack
leading to the successful breach of millions of Americans'
financial, health, or other personal data.
During an informative Research and Technology Subcommittee
hearing two weeks ago, a witness representing the U.S.
Government Accountability Office (GAO) testified that ``Cyber-
based intrusions and attacks on federal systems and systems
supporting our nation's critical infrastructure, such as
communications and financial services, are evolving and
becoming more sophisticated.'' The GAO witness also explained
that ``over the past several years, GAO has made about 2,500
recommendations to federal agencies to enhance their
information security programs and controls. As of February
2017, about 1,000 recommendations had not been implemented.''
These are not pieces of information to be taken lightly.
Last fall, this Committee marked up a bill I introduced that
reflected a need for accountability, responsibility, and
transparency by federal agencies relative to their
cybersecurity capabilities.
The bill under discussion today takes the same general
approach as last year's bill, which the Committee approved by
voice vote. H.R. 1224 also reflects recommendations from two
recent reports that were the focus of the Subcommittee hearing
two weeks ago.
Highlights of the bill include:
LAmending NIST's mission to emphasize the
principle that expanding cyber threats require the engineering
of security from the beginning of a system's life cycle;
LPromoting federal implementation of the NIST
Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity
(Framework);
LEstablishing a federal working group to develop
quantifiable metrics to help federal agencies analyze and
assess the effectiveness of the Framework in protecting their
information and information systems;
LDirecting NIST to complete an initial assessment
of the cybersecurity preparedness of federal agencies;
LDirecting NIST to initiate individual
cybersecurity audits of each agency to assess the extent to
which they are meeting the information security standards
developed by the Institute; and
LProviding agencies and Congress with an audit
report.
The Committee's jurisdiction over NIST provides it the
ability to present the Institute with the flexibility to expand
its functions in an effort to address the cybersecurity
emergency facing our nation. It is to NIST's credit that the
Committee regards the Institute as part of the solution, and
not the problem. H.R. 1224 reflects the Committee's resolve to
provide federal agencies all the tools it may be able to use to
help remedy the federal government's cybersecurity
shortcomings.
It is easy to sit back and state, with the benefit of
NIST's reputation as an exemplary agency, that we should not
consider changing the way the Institute operates because of
what might happen or how the Institute's reputation or
effectiveness might suffer.
But the current state of affairs do not suggest that the
best way forward is to keep taking the path of least
resistance. Much as the nature of cyber-attacks continue to
evolve to reflect the sophistication of the cyber criminals, we
in the government must also be willing to evolve to protect
Americans and our government. That evolution starts with
thinking outside the box instead of maintaining a business as
usual approach.
H.R. 1224 establishes the Committee's mark on a very
important issue. It sets the tone for future cybersecurity
discussions by taking some first steps to strengthen federal
cybersecurity defenses, and holding federal agencies
accountable through regular cyber audits.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield
back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Abraham.
We will now proceed with amendments in the order listed on
the roster. The first amendment is going to be the Manger's
Amendment, and the clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1224 offered by Mr. Smith of
Texas, amendment #008.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment will be
considered as read, and I'll recognize myself to explain the
Manager's Amendment.
This amendment makes some edits for consistency and
clarity. The amendment adds the Office of Management and
Budget, OMB, to the Federal Working Group established and
chaired by NIST and specifies the involvement of OMB in
developing and publishing the annual report based on
information compiled by the Federal Working Group.
These commonsense additions will ensure the Federal Working
Group has the best representation to effectively guide Federal
agencies and that its reports have the weight of the White
House behind it.
OMB's role under the Federal Information Security
Modernization means the Office is familiar with agency
cybersecurity reporting requirements.
These edits further improve an already good bill, and I
urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Is there further discussion on the amendment? The
gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I move to
strike the last word.
Chairman Smith. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Johnson. I oppose this amendment. As I noted in my
opening statement, I oppose the underlying bill. This amendment
doesn't do anything to fix the underlying problems with the
bill, and in one instance might actually make the bill worse.
I'm happy to see that you're adding OMB to at least
somewhere in some of what belongs in the bill. However, your
amendment does nothing to fix the inappropriate inclusion of
OSTP in the bill while the last paragraph of the amendment will
be moot if Mr. Abraham's amendment is accepted. That paragraph
has implications beyond this bill, so I want to register my
concerns thereto.
The last paragraph contains a blanket prohibition on the
use of any information collected under this bill for the
purposes of oversight and promulgation of regulations. While I
appreciate the desire to engage with industry openly, blanket
prohibitions on the use of information seem to me to be
shortsighted.
The pitfalls associated with forcing the government to
ignore data in a field as vitally important as our national
security or cybersecurity seem too numerous to count. The
Majority spent much of the last Congress taking the
Administration to task for various cybersecurity issues. To now
force the government to ignore relevant cybersecurity
information seems like a mechanism to ensure the government
fails in the future. That seems like a bad idea to me.
I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
Is there any further discussion on the amendment?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the Manager's
Amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
Those opposed, say no.
The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
The next amendment on the roster is offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Abraham, and does the gentleman
wish to be recognized?
Mr. Abraham. No, sir, I'm good.
Chairman Smith. I think you may have an amendment at the
desk.
Mr. Abraham. OK.
Chairman Smith. And the clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1224 offered by Mr. Abraham of
Louisiana, amendment #021.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, and the gentleman is recognized to explain
his amendment.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My amendment strikes the public-private working group
provision and any reference to it and the accompanying report.
The language was developed as a natural extension of a similar
provision for a Federal working group established to help
Federal agencies determine the effectiveness of the Framework
in protecting Federal information systems.
However, since most of the bill focuses on the Committee's
concern with making Federal cybersecurity system more secure, I
believe this provision aimed at helping private entities would
be better addressed in a separate legislative vehicle.
The work of this Committee over the past few years and the
testimony from witnesses 2 weeks ago in the Research and
Technology Subcommittee hearing reinforce the need for us to
focus on Federal agency issues. And you heard Chairman Smith
describe the Committee's review of specific agencies, namely
the Office of Personnel Management and the IRS and the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield
back.
Chairman Smith. I appreciate the gentleman's amendment, and
I recommend it to my colleagues.
And is there any further discussion on the amendment?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment
offered by Mr. Abraham.
All in favor, say aye.
Those opposed, say no.
The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
The next amendment on the roster is going to be offered by
the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski, and he is recognized
for that purpose.
Mr. Lipinski. Mr. Chairman, I have a revised amendment at
the desk.
Chairman Smith. The clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1224 offered by Mr. Lipinski
of Illinois, amendment #013.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, and the gentleman is recognized to explain
his amendment.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you.
Cybersecurity is a real and growing challenge for our
government, businesses and individuals. While new authorities
for information sharing on cyber threats, the increased
investments in network security have been put in place, we
continue to see vulnerabilities get exploited, our systems or
devices hacked, and cyber intrusions occur. These often lead to
significant cost or security consequences.
While Federal agencies have been tasked to develop
cybersecurity systems based on their individual agency risk
assessments, little has been done to assure the effective
implementation of cyber protections based on those risk
determinations or even that those risks are adequately
characterized.
We tend to be reminded of this any time a Federal agency is
the target of a major hack. So I agree there's legitimate needs
to conduct regular oversight and to audit agency risk
assessments in cybersecurity implementation. But I'm not
convinced that NIST or at least NIST alone is the appropriate
agency for this task for a few reasons.
First, while the Institute is capable of supporting the
development of a cyber framework and standards, conducting
audits would be a different task. It would require a larger
work force with new skill sets and expertise in computer
security, audit methodologies, and more. Other agencies such as
the GAO are more experienced in conducting audits while
Inspectors General are going to have greater understanding of
other respective agencies' business models, computer networks
and services that would allow for more comprehensive audit.
There are also concerns that having NIST develop
cybersecurity framework for private-sector entities could be
perceived as oversight or regulatory approach which could turn
private parties away from working with the Institute and other
technical standards and activities.
I believe that this concern has been addressed in part at
least through Mr. Abraham's amendment.
Finally, over the last few years, an array of new cyber
authorities, information-sharing regimes and technical
capabilities have been stood up by legislation and executive
action, which appear to not be integrated into the bill we have
before us.
We passed the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act 14
months ago to enable threat-based cybersecurity information to
be shared between private entities and the U.S. Government. DHS
has continued to develop its EINSTEIN system to detect and
block cyber intrusions at Federal agencies and to use that
threat information to better protect the rest of the
government. DHS is also tasked with working alongside the
private sector to protect private and public critical
infrastructure including cyber-based systems. It is also joint
lead agencies with NIST in developing a better qualified cyber
work force.
I think we should be cautious in adding to NIST this new
cyber--these new cyber responsibilities without considering how
we integrate them with other existing cybersecurity programs
across our government.
What my amendment would do is before conducting the audits,
direct the Institute to first develop a plan for how it would
carry out the very broad and intensive work of cyber auditing
of every Federal department. We should know how much manpower
this will take, what it will cost, where and if such expertise
exists in the Federal Government at NIST or elsewhere, or if
there will be a need to contract out this type of work. We also
need to know what type of methods or approach NIST and/or other
agencies would use in conducting cyber audits. Once the
Institute has developed that plan and sent it to Congress,
we'll know the cost and requirements to fulfill this task and
support NIST effectively in carrying out its mission.
My amendment had originally sought to delay the onset of
the audits so that it would follow the plan, but I understand
the Chairman's interest in the audits commencing as soon as
possible. I hope we can continue to work to perfect this as the
bill moves ahead.
We do not want to ask NIST or any other agency to take on
the vital task of assuring our Federal agencies have prepared
their networks to be safe but then provide it with the
manpower, funding, expertise or knowledge to do the job right
the first time. We have seen far too many times computer
network security get shorted in attention and resources and
then we complain about the outcomes. We should not do that now,
and this amendment will help to hopefully ensure that we do not
do that here.
So I ask for support of this amendment, and I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski. I appreciate the
thoughtful amendment, and I recommend it to my colleagues, and
yes, we will continue our discussions on the general subject.
Is there any further discussion on the amendment?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment
offered by Mr. Lipinski.
All in favor, say aye.
Those opposed, say no.
The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
The next amendment on the roster will be offered by the
gentleman from Illinois, Dr. Foster, and he is recognized for
that purpose.
Mr. Foster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment is from
myself and Mr. Takano, and it simply asks----
Chairman Smith. The clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1224 offered by Mr. Foster of
Illinois, amendment #010.
Chairman Smith. And without objection, the amendment will
be considered as read. I'm going to reserve a point of order
against the amendment for being non-germane but nevertheless
the gentleman is recognized to explain the amendment.
Mr. Foster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This amendment is from myself and Mr. Takano, and it simply
adds a sense of Congress that the Office of Technology
Assessment, or OTA, should be reinstated. For more than two
decades, the OTA provided relevant, unbiased and technical and
scientific assessments for Members of Congress and their staff,
and although the OTA remains authorized to this day, foolishly,
the Office was defunded in 1995, stripping Congress of a
valuable resource that understood emerging technologies as well
as the intricacies of the legislative process and the needs of
policymakers.
The expertise provided by the OTA saved taxpayers billions
of dollars by identifying cost-effective areas for future
investment and avoiding wasting money on technologies and
policies that did not and could not work. The OTA's 24-year
body of work encompasses some 750 reports and assessments on
issues as far-ranging as arms control to bioterrorism to
computer network and security and privacy issues.
Interestingly, the last report the OTA issued was on network
security and privacy issues and was published in 1995, just
before it was defunded. Imagine how useful such a report would
have been if it could have been paid attention to and updated
through today.
As technology continues to advance and non-defense budgets
continue to shrink, this sort of trustworthy, nonpartisan
analysis is no less necessary today than it was when the OTA
was first started over 40 years ago.
We cannot slow down the rapid pace of technology but we can
give ourselves back an important and proven tool. Congress
needs the OTA now more than ever, and what we should be talking
about is this rather than other things we're discussing today.
And if we really want to get ahead of the next cybersecurity
threats, we should be doing everything we can to make informed
policy decisions. Instead of straining the authority and the
resources of NIST just so this Committee can claim that we did
something relevant about cybersecurity, we should be making
smart policy with input from nonpartisan experts. This is
exactly what the Office of Technology Assessment used to do,
and I'm very grateful to my colleague on the Committee, Mr.
Takano, for his efforts in this area and for cosponsoring this
amendment as well as to my colleague, Mr. Chaffetz of Utah, who
has worked with me for several years advocating for the OTA.
And I'd now like to yield 1 minute to my cosponsor, Mr.
Takano.
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Foster.
I have been proud to work with you in raising awareness and
support for the Office of Technology Assessment, or OTA.
As you say, for more than two decades OTA provided unbiased
technical and scientific assessments for Members of Congress
and staff. The OTA was defunded in 1995, stripping Congress of
a valuable resource. Twenty years later, many of the topics OTA
studied are still relevant today. I certainly believe that we
would be better able to tackle the complexity of an issue like
cybersecurity if we had OTA today.
This amendment expresses the sense of Congress that OTA
should be funded. In a world of alternative facts, the unbiased
and thorough analysis of OTA provided--that the OTA provided is
more important than ever.
I yield back to Mr. Foster.
Mr. Foster. Thank you, Mr. Takano.
Mr. Chairman, I understand that we are unlikely to have the
votes to prevail against your technical point of order against
this amendment and so I hereby withdraw my amendment, but I do
urge my colleagues to think critically about the time and money
that we could have saved rather than legislating for an
uncertain and poorly understood future of technology, and urge
my colleagues to work every way we can to try to restore
funding for the OTA.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Mr. Foster, Mr. Takano, thank you for your
comments. As tempted as I am to support an amendment that would
allow the President to appoint more individuals, I nevertheless
appreciate the gentleman withdrawing the amendment. Without
objection, it is withdrawn.
Are there any further amendments?
If not, a reporting quorum being present, I move that the
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology report H.R. 1224 to
the House as amended with the recommendation that the bill be
approved.
The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 1224 to the
House as amended.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, nay.
The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered reported
favorably----
Ms. Johnson. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. The gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. Johnson. I'd like to request a record vote on this.
Chairman Smith. A roll call vote has been requested.
Without objection, the clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Smith?
Chairman Smith. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes aye.
Mr. Lucas?
Mr. Lucas. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Lucas votes aye.
Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye.
Mr. Brooks?
Mr. Brooks. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Brooks votes aye.
Mr. Hultgren?
Mr. Hultgren. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Hultgren votes aye.
Mr. Posey?
Mr. Posey. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Posey votes aye.
Mr. Massey?
Mr. Massey. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Massey votes aye.
Mr. Bridenstine?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Weber?
Mr. Weber. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Weber votes aye.
Mr. Knight?
Mr. Knight. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Knight votes aye.
Mr. Babin?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mrs. Comstock?
Mrs. Comstock. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Comstock votes aye.
Mr. Palmer?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Abraham?
Mr. Abraham. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Abraham votes aye.
Mr. LaHood?
Mr. LaHood. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. LaHood votes aye.
Mr. Webster?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Banks?
Mr. Banks. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Banks votes aye.
Mr. Biggs?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Marshall?
Mr. Marshall. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Marshall votes aye.
Mr. Dunn?
Mr. Dunn. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Dunn votes aye.
Mr. Higgins?
Mr. Higgins. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Higgins votes aye.
Ms. Johnson?
Ms. Johnson. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes no.
Ms. Lofgren?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Lipinski?
Mr. Lipinski. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Lipinski votes aye.
Ms. Bonamici?
Ms. Bonamici. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Bonamici votes no.
Mr. Bera?
Mr. Bera. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Bera votes no.
Ms. Esty?
Ms. Esty. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Esty votes no.
Mr. Veasey?
Mr. Veasey. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Veasey votes no.
Mr. Beyer?
Mr. Beyer. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Beyer votes no.
Ms. Rosen?
Ms. Rosen. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Rosen votes no.
Mr. McNerney?
Mr. McNerney. No.
The Clerk. Mr. McNerney votes no.
Mr. Perlmutter?
Mr. Perlmutter. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Perlmutter votes no.
Mr. Tonko?
Mr. Tonko. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Tonko votes no.
Mr. Foster?
Mr. Foster. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Foster votes no.
Mr. Takano?
Mr. Takano. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Takano votes no.
Ms. Hanabusa?
Ms. Hanabusa. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Hanabusa votes no.
Mr. Crist?
Mr. Crist. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Crist votes no.
Mr. Babin?
Mr. Babin. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Babin votes aye.
Mr. Loudermilk?
Mr. Loudermilk. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk votes aye.
Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. The clerk will report the vote.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, 19 Members voted aye and 14
Members voted no.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5710.001
Chairman Smith. The ayes have it, and H.R. 1224 is reported
favorably to the House as amended.
Without objection, the Motion to Reconsider is laid upon
the table. H.R. 1224 is ordered reported to the House.
I ask unanimous consent that staff authorized to make any
necessary technical and conforming changes. Without objection,
so ordered.
If there is no further discussion, that completes our
business, and this concludes the Science Committee markup.
Without objection, the Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:37 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
H.R. 1224, Amendment Roster, Section-by-Section Analysis, Letter of
Support
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE
MARKUP: H.R. 1430, HONEST AND
OPEN NEW EPA SCIENCE TREATMENT
ACT OF 2017 (HONEST ACT);
AND H.R. 1431, EPA
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
REFORM ACT OF 2017
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2017
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:37 a.m., in
room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar
Smith [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Chairman Smith. The Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recess at any time, and without objection, the Chair is
authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any time.
Pursuant to Committee Rule II(e) and House Rule
112(2)(h)(4), the Chair announces that he may postpone roll
call votes.
Today we meet to consider two bills. The first is H.R.
1430, the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of
2017, or the HONEST Act, and H.R. 1431, the EPA Science
Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017. I'll recognize myself for an
opening statement and then the Ranking Member.
H.R. 1430
Chairman Smith. Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R.
1430, the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act for
2017, or the HONEST Act. The clerk will report the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 1430, a bill to prohibit the Environmental
Protection Agency from proposing, finalizing or disseminating
regulations or assessments----
Chairman Smith. OK. And without objection, the bill is
considered as read and open for amendment at any point, and
I'll continue with my opening statement.
H.R. 1430 is a short, 4-page, commonsense bill that simply
requires the Environmental Protection Agency to base its
regulations on science that is publicly available, not secret.
In the last Congress, a similar bill, the Secret Science Act,
passed the House with bipartisan support.
Today's legislation, which I introduced with Democratic
Representative Henry Cuellar, ensures sound science is the
basis for EPA decisions and regulatory actions. The days of
trust-me science are over. In our modern information age,
Federal regulations should be based only upon data that is
available for every American to see and can be subjected to
independent review. That's the scientific method.
We can all agree that the government should rely on the
best available science. Unfortunately, the government does not
always hold to this standard. Looking at the EPA's past record,
it is clear that the Agency has not followed an open and honest
process. For example, nearly every major air quality regulation
from the previous Administration was justified by studies using
data that even the EPA had not seen. This means that the EPA's
claims about the costs and benefits of its regulations and the
real risks they are meant to address cannot be independently
evaluated by unbiased experts. If EPA's mandates are really
based on sound science, then show Americans the data. EPA's
refusal to cooperate leads to the question: What are they
hiding?
Perhaps the most burdensome Obama-era regulation is the
Clean Power Plan. This rule mandates what types of energy we
can and cannot use and would regulate all of the Nation's
electricity supply. The proposal would cost billions of dollars
annually, kill thousands of jobs, and increase electricity
costs for everyone, all while having a minimal benefit on the
environment.
In fact, the Clean Power Plan would only reduce global
temperatures by three one-hundredths of a degree Celsius and
reduce sea-level rise by the thickness of only three sheets of
paper. How can these miniscule benefits be justified,
particularly given the adverse impacts of the regulation?
Again, the EPA should show Americans the data they claim
justifies their regulations.
We all care about the environment. We share a common goal
to protect the lands we farm and the water we drink. But if
policies aren't based on legit science, stringent regulations
and unachievable results in economic hardship with little or no
environmental benefit. In other words, the regulations would be
all pain and no gain.
Instead of producing policies that protect the environment,
it appears that the EPA is more concerned with pushing a
political agenda. This is why outside independent review should
be required. It's impossible to conduct a policy debate without
all the facts.
The bill before us strengthens previous House-passed
legislation in the 114th Congress, the Secret Science Reform
Act. That bill also required the EPA to base its decisions on
information available to scientists and the American public.
This year's legislation improves on the bill that passed in the
last Congress. It adds provisions to better protect personally
identifiable information and confidential business information
as well. It also stipulates that this bill does not
retroactively apply to past regulations, but instead focuses on
new regulations. It stipulates that this bill does not
retroactively apply to the past regulations. This allows the
EPA to focus its limited resources on quality science that all
researchers can examine.
This bill will promote sound science and restore confidence
in the EPA decisionmaking process. This bill ensures that the
EPA is not promoting a one-sided ideological agenda. The
legislation provides an opportunity for the type of honest and
accountable government that the American people want and
deserve.
So I urge my colleagues to support the HONEST Act.
Prepared Statement of Chairman Smith
H.R. 1430, the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment
Act of 2017, or HONEST Act, is a short, four page, common-sense
bill that simply requires the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to base its regulations on science that is publicly
available, not secret.
In the last Congress, a similar bill, the Secret Science
Act, passed the House with bipartisan support.
Today's legislation, which I introduced with Democratic
Representative Henry Cuellar, ensures sound science is the
basis for EPA decisions and regulatory actions.
The days of trust-me ``science'' are over. In our modern
information age, federal regulations should be based only upon
data that is available for every American to see and can be
subjected to independent review. That's the scientific method.
We can all agree that the government should rely on the
best available science. Unfortunately, the government does not
always hold to this standard.
Looking at the EPA's past record, it is clear that the
agency has not followed an open and honest process. For
example, nearly every major air quality regulation from the
previous administration was justified by studies using data
that even the EPA hadn't seen.
This means that the EPA's claims about the costs and
benefits of its regulations and the real risks they are meant
to address cannot be independently evaluated by unbiased
experts.
If EPA's mandates are really based on sound science, then
show Americans the data. EPA's refusal to cooperate leads to
the question: What are they hiding?
Perhaps the most burdensome Obama era regulation is the
Clean Power Plan. This rule mandates what types of energy we
can and cannot use and would regulate all of the nation's
electricity supply.
The proposal would cost billions of dollars annually, kill
thousands of jobs, and increase electricity costs for everyone,
all while having a minimal benefit on the environment.
In fact, the Clean Power Plan would only reduce global
temperatures by three onehundredths of a degree Celsius and
reduce sea level rise by the thickness of only three sheets of
paper.
How can these miniscule benefits be justified, particularly
given the adverse impacts of the regulation? Again, the EPA
should show Americans the data they claim justifies their
regulations.
We all care about the environment. We share a common goal
to protect the lands we farm and the water we drink.
But if policies aren't based on legit science, stringent
regulations and unachievable standards will result in economic
hardship with little or no environmental benefit. In other
words, the regulations would be all pain and no gain.
Instead of producing policies that protect the environment,
it appears that the EPA is more concerned with pushing a
political agenda. This is why outside independent review should
be required. It's impossible to conduct a policy debate without
all the facts.
The bill before us strengthens previous House-passed
legislation in the 114th Congress, the Secret Science Reform
Act. That bill also required the EPA to base its decisions on
information available to scientists and the American public.
This year's legislation improves on the bill that passed in
the last Congress. It adds provisions to better protect
personally identifiable information and confidential business
information.
It also stipulates that this bill does not retroactively
apply to past regulations, but instead focuses on new
regulations.
This allows the EPA to focus its limited resources on
quality science that all researchers can examine. This bill
will promote sound science and restore confidence in the EPA
decision-making process.
This bill ensures that the EPA is not promoting a one-sided
ideological agenda. The legislation provides an opportunity for
the type of honest and accountable government that the American
people want and deserve. I urge my colleagues to support the
HONEST Act.
Chairman Smith. Before yielding to the Ranking Member,
without objection, I'd like to add the following letters of
support for H.R. 1430 into the record. They would be US Chamber
of Commerce, Independent Petroleum Association of America,
American Exploration and Production Council, Princeton and CO2
Coalition, Cato, National Association of Home Builders, the
Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council.
With that, I'll yield to the Ranking Member, the
gentlewoman from Texas, Eddie Bernice Johnson.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Today we will be revisiting two bills this Committee
considered in the previous two Congresses: The Secret Science
Reform Act, which is now renamed the HONEST Act, and the EPA
Science Advisory Board Reform Act. As in those prior
congresses, today I will be strongly opposing passage of each
of these misguided pieces of legislation.
At the outset, let me say that the cosmetic changes that
were made to the Secret Science Reform Act in arriving at the
HONEST Act do nothing to address the larger issues with this
bill. Under the current legislation, the EPA would have to
publicly distribute any scientific data relied upon for a
covered action. EPA could withhold from public distribution
items containing trade secrets or personal information.
However, under this bill, anyone could then access this
sensitive data after signing a confidentiality agreement with
the EPA. Since the EPA is not authorized to issue
confidentiality agreements for third-party researchers, this
legislation would have the same effect as the Secret Science
Reform Act: Limiting the ability of the EPA to use the best
science.
Since we have some new Members on the Science Committee, I
think it might be instructive to remind folks how we got to
today's markup of the HONEST Act. Several years ago a tobacco
industry consultant attempted to obtain access to the American
Cancer Society's epidemiology data. He was denied access to
that data due to his extensive prior connections with the
tobacco industry and prior misuse of American Cancer Society
data. Then the Chairman came to his aid, by subpoenaing the EPA
to provide the Committee with the data used in two seminal
health studies conducted by Harvard and the American Cancer
Society, not the EPA or the government. This data contained the
personal health histories of tens of thousands of American
citizens. Thankfully, since EPA did not possess this data, they
were unable to provide it to the Committee. I say this because
the Chairman had indicated his intent to publicly distribute
these tens of thousands of people's health histories over the
internet--a horrifying prospect.
However, that answer didn't satisfy the Majority. The
Majority's solution to this manufactured problem was the Secret
Science Reform Act. At the legislative hearing on this bill,
the Majority invited three witnesses with extensive ties to the
tobacco industry. And this would be a theme that would
continue. The groups that endorsed the Majority's bill are a
who's who of toxic chemical manufacturers.
On the other hand, groups that opposed the bill included
the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the
American Lung Association, the American Association for
Justice, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Natural
Resources Defense Council, and a host of other public health
and environmental groups. The differences in those two groups
underscores the real intent of this legislation: To undermine
the science that EPA can use in their work, and ultimately,
make it easier to pollute in our country.
If this bill were enacted, EPA could be crippled, and the
result would be more sick Americans and more dead Americans.
Now, before I conclude, I'd like to say to Mr. Chairman and
the Committee, I have several letters of opposition that I'd
like to place in the record from the Union----
Chairman Smith. Without objection.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Johnson [continuing]. Of Concerned Scientists, the
Environmental Defense Fund, the American Geophysical Union, the
American Thoracic Society, and the American Lung Association
all opposing these bills and all who recognize the danger these
bills pose to the private health information of Americans.
Trade secrets of industries, and the ability of the
Environmental Protection Agency to protect the public health
and environment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back
Prepared Statement of Ms. Johnson
Thank you Chairman Smith. Today we will be revisiting two
bills this committee considered in the previous two congresses:
The Secret Science Reform Act, which is now renamed the HONEST
Act, and the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act. As in those
prior congresses, today I will be strongly opposing passage of
each of these misguided pieces of legislation.
At the outset, let me say that the cosmetic changes that
were made to the Secret Science Reform Act in arriving at the
HONEST Act do nothing to address the larger issues with this
bill. Under the current legislation, the EPA would have to
publicly distribute any scientific data relied upon for a
covered action. EPA could withhold from public distribution
items containing trade secrets or personal information.
However, under this bill anyone could then access this
sensitive data after signing a confidentiality agreement with
the EPA. Since the EPA is not authorized to issue
confidentiality agreements for third party researchers, this
legislation would have the same effect as the Secret Science
Reform Act: Limiting the ability of the EPA to use the best
science.
Since we have some new Members on the Science Committee, I
think it might be instructive to remind folks how we got to
today's markup of the HONEST Act. Several years ago a tobacco
industry consultant attempted to obtain access to the American
Cancer Society's epidemiology data. He was denied access to
that data due to his extensive prior connections with the
tobacco industry and prior misuse of American Cancer Society
data. Then the Chairman came to his aid, by subpoenaing the EPA
to provide the Committee with the data used in two seminal
health studies conducted by Harvard and the American Cancer
Society. This data contained the personal health histories of
tens of thousands of American citizens. Thankfully, since EPA
did not possess this data, they were unable to provide it to
the Committee. I say this because the Chairman had indicated
his intent to publicly distribute these tens of thousands of
people's health histories over the internet - a horrifying
prospect.
However, that answer didn't satisfy the Majority. The
Majority's solution to this manufactured problem was the Secret
Science Reform Act. At the legislative hearing on this bill,
the Majority invited three witnesses with extensive ties to the
tobacco industry. And this would be a theme that would
continue. The groups that endorsed the Majority's bill are a
``who's who'' of toxic chemical manufacturers. On the other
hand, groups that opposed the bill included the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Lung
Association, the American Association for Justice, the Union of
Concerned Scientists, the Natural Resources Defense Council,
and a host of other public health and environmental groups.
The differences in those two groups underscores the real
intent of this legislation: To undermine the science that EPA
can use in their work, and ultimately, make it easier to
pollute in our country. If this bill were enacted, EPA could be
crippled, and the result would be more sick Americans and more
dead Americans.
I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
Are there any amendments to this bill, or does the
gentlewoman from Oregon wish to be recognized, and if so----
Ms. Bonamici. Yes. I move to strike the last word.
Chairman Smith. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
When I'm home in Oregon and talk about serving on the
Science Committee, a committee with tremendous potential, my
constituents ask me what are we doing to promote more research
and investment in technology that will drive down the cost of
renewable energy and reduce our country's dependence on fossil
fuels. They wonder what we're doing to protect our coastline
from ocean acidification and threats of tsunami. They want the
local Superfund site cleaned up, and they don't want cuts to
the EPA budget. They aren't asking us to spend time challenging
the data behind the research that supports important
regulations that help keep our air and water clean, and they
certainly aren't asking this Committee to spend time putting
more industry representatives and fewer scientists on the EPA's
Science Advisory Boards.
Yet we're here today considering these bills when there's
so many other things and more meaningful policies we should be
discussing. Congress, especially the Science Committee, has a
responsibility to act to preserve our planet's health and
stabilize the threats to our environment and our economy,
threats that are serious and detrimental to the planet if we do
nothing. Climate change is real and it's advancing. We had a
very warm February. Global sea levels are rising, ice sheets
are melting and shrinking at alarming rates. The health of our
oceans is at risk. The acidity of our surface ocean waters is
rapidly increasing, and the upper layers of the ocean are
absorbing about 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide every year.
Unfortunately, the new Environmental Protection Agency
Administrator appears to have little appreciation for the role
of the Agency in protecting the environment. In his first days
at the EPA, Administrator Pruitt has started the process of
rolling back protections for our water, our streams, and
walking away from collecting data on methane emissions.
According to a recent New York Times article, he is filling the
Agency with climate change skeptics and deniers, and as former
Administrator Gina McCarthy remarked, ``Here for the first time
I see someone who has no commitment to the mission of the
Agency.''
By considering the bills before us today, this Committee is
ignoring our responsibility to protect the environment. The
completely unnecessary so-called HONEST Act will undermine
Americans' privacy rights by allowing personally identifiable
information to be public at the Administrator's discretion, and
the EPA Science Advisory Board will not further the Agency's
mission of protecting human health and the environment. The
bill aims to pack the Science Advisory Board with industry
representatives while leaving out knowledgeable scientists who
actually do EPA-funded research.
Now, I'm proud to have worked with so many of you across
the aisle during my years on this Committee. I ask that we take
a step back to reflect on the mission of the EPA and think
about how we can work together to make our environment and our
economy thrive for future generations. Let's reject these
partisan bills today and find some commonsense policies we can
agree on that will move our country forward.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici.
And the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Beyer, is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the
last word.
Chairman Smith. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I have a number of objections to this
proposal which I'll briefly share now and then submit my
extended remarks for the record later.
First, while the ability to reproduce work is crucial to
the scientific process, we should not focus so heavily or
exclusively on reproducibility. Not all work that's
reproducible is right, and just because it is not reproducible
does not make it wrong. Funding agencies, scientific journals,
and the EPA have worked on their own over the last few years to
enact policies and best practices that encourage a more open
process that can be easily reproduced.
But we need to think of some of the most catastrophic
public health threats that have occurred over the last 35 years
or so, events we need to study but could not possibly
reproduce: Ash clouds and dust caused by Mt. St. Helens
eruption in 1980, extensive flooding and damage caused by
Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the massive Gulf oil spill resulting
from Deepwater Horizon explosions in 2010, the fires, fumes and
dust in New York caused by the collapse of the Twin Towers on
9/11, the Aliso Canyon gas leak in 2015, or even the oft-
studied, oft-hearing Gold King Mine spill in 2015. How could we
possibly reproduce these large and unpredictable events in
exactly the same way? We can't, but does this mean we should no
longer study the impact of these nationally important events? I
hope not because the American people need answers because their
health depends on it.
Second, many of my Federal employee constituents and I take
offense at the title of this legislation, the HONEST Act, which
seems to somehow imply that EPA employees and EPA scientists
are somehow not being honest. So I want to take this
opportunity to tell the hardworking, dedicated employees of the
EPA and civil servants governmentwide that many in Congress
recognize the significant work you do. Many in this body
despite what's implied by the title of this Act hold your work
in high regard, and we appreciate the substantial contributions
you've made in furtherance of clean air, clean water and public
health, and I hope that my Republican colleagues will soon come
to realize and appreciate the vital mission of the EPA and hope
they'll stop tarnishing the work and attacking the reputations
of the dedicated civil servants who work to advance its mission
and the health of all Americans.
I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Beyer.
The gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney, is recognized.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
What we're considering today is basically the Secret
Science Reform Act with a new name. The bill before us today,
the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act, is an attack
on the EPA. The bill is an attempt to undermine the Clean Air
Act and the progress the law has made in improving public and
environmental health.
A scientist collects data for his or her research, and in
order for it to be published, it must go through peer review,
which the EPA then uses in developing science-based rules. The
EPA identifies peer-reviewed articles in the Federal Register.
The process for rulemaking is currently transparent and
thorough. This bill would add unneeded duplication and expense
to the process. It's also unclear how this legislation would
improve our ability to enact oversight and protections for
environment and public health.
If we want to encourage businesses to develop new,
innovative technologies and for our science community to be
able to work without fear of retribution for their work, we
must protect confidential business information. This bill has
no protections for confidential business information. Without
safeguards for confidential business information, businesses
have no incentive whatsoever to share their information with
the Federal Government and our scientists will not have the
best available science for their work or to protect public
health and protect the environment from harm.
This legislation illustrates a basic lack of understanding
about how science and industry is conducted and will harm our
ability to execute quality science. This legislation has no
redeeming qualities, and I urge its opposition.
With that, I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. McNerney.
Let me just recognize myself for a minute, and I am going
to be able to point to language in the bill that might address
some of the concerns that have been raised here today about the
exposure of confidential information that happens to be one of
the changes we made in the bill from last year to this bill is
to protect that private information, and I'll be giving you
that language momentarily. If you all will take a look at page
2 of the bill, lines 18 to 22, the redacted information
described in paragraph 1C shall be disclosed to a person only
after such person signs a written confidentiality agreement
with the Administrator subject to guidance to be developed by
the Administrator. So I really think we've addressed, as I say,
some of the concerns that have been raised.
If there are no amendments----
Mr. Perlmutter. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Smith. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr.
Perlmutter, is recognized.
Mr. Perlmutter. I move to strike the last word.
Chairman Smith. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Perlmutter. And I appreciate the Chairman and that
amendment. We've seen this bill before. That amendment helped
what we had last year, which was the Secret Science bill, but
that was a lousy bill then and this is still a lousy bill now,
even with the amendment that the Chairman has made to the bill.
And, you know, the moniker, the name of this bill, the HONEST
Act, really should be the Dishonest Act because it dishonestly
describes what's going on in the Environmental Protection
Agency that's looking to try to protect our environment from
extreme weather events that we have in Colorado, you have on
the Coast, you have all over the country and all over the
world. And for this Committee to continue to, you know, put its
head in the sand and ignore what's going on every day is really
a problem and needs to be corrected, and the HONEST Act doesn't
do that.
But I do want to thank the Chairman for--you know, we've
had opportunity to have hearings on this bill, unlike what's
going on in the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Ways and
Means Committee where the entire Affordable Care Act is being
repealed without a single hearing, without a single witness,
without a single discussion in the middle of the night, and
it's that kind of hypocrisy that comes when a number of years
ago there was objection to the Affordable Care Act saying there
wasn't enough time to study it when in fact there were 79
hearings and hundreds of witnesses and hundreds and hundreds of
hours of testimony. To try to ram that through at this point is
a real mistake and is in contrast to actually having some
regular order that we have in this Committee from time to time.
So I applaud the regular order that the Chairman conducts
but I still disagree that this bill does anything to help the
environment or to assist the EPA in its mission of trying to
keep people healthy and keep the environment healthy.
And so with that, I urge a no vote on this bill, and I
yield back to the Chair.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Perlmutter. We appreciate
the compliment directed toward the Committee.
The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Posey, is recognized.
Mr. Posey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to thank you for bringing this bill forward. I
want to thank you for the transparent process that you allowed
it to go through. This clearly is just a matter of transparency
and government accountability. I don't have a single--well, I
can't really say that, I have a few nuts--but most of my
constituents want government to be more transparent and they
want it to be more accountable, and you know, I'm just shocked
there's so many people that are afraid of transparency and
accountability, and I thank you for bringing forward this bill
that makes it more transparent and more accountable. The
citizens deserve it. And I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Posey.
If there are no amendments, a reporting quorum being
present, I move that the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology report H.R. 1430 to the House with the
recommendation that the bill be approved.
The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 1430 to the
House.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, nay.
The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered reported
favorably.
Ms. Johnson. Mr. Chairman----
Chairman Smith. A roll call vote has been requested by the
Ranking Member, and the clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Smith?
Chairman Smith. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes aye.
Mr. Lucas?
Mr. Lucas. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Lucas votes aye.
Mr. Rohrabacher?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Brooks?
Mr. Brooks. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Brooks votes aye.
Mr. Hultgren?
Mr. Hultgren. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Hultgren votes aye.
Mr. Posey?
Mr. Posey. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Posey votes aye.
Mr. Massie?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Bridenstine?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Weber?
Mr. Weber. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Weber votes aye.
Mr. Knight?
Mr. Knight. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Knight votes aye.
Mr. Babin?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mrs. Comstock?
Mrs. Comstock. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Comstock votes aye.
Mr. Palmer?
Mr. Palmer. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Palmer votes aye.
Mr. Loudermilk?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Abraham?
Mr. Abraham. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Abraham votes aye.
Mr. LaHood?
Mr. LaHood. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. LaHood votes aye.
Mr. Webster?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Banks?
Mr. Banks. Yes. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Banks votes aye.
Mr. Biggs?
Mr. Biggs. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes aye.
Mr. Marshall?
Mr. Marshall. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Marshall votes aye.
Mr. Dunn?
Mr. Dunn. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Dunn votes aye.
Mr. Higgins?
Mr. Higgins. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Higgins votes aye.
Ms. Johnson?
Ms. Johnson. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes nay.
Ms. Lofgren?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Lipinski?
Mr. Lipinski. Nay.
The Clerk. Mr. Lipinski votes nay.
Ms. Bonamici?
Ms. Bonamici. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Bonamici votes nay.
Mr. Bera?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Esty?
Ms. Esty. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Esty votes nay.
Mr. Veasey?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Beyer?
Mr. Beyer. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Beyer votes nay.
Ms. Rosen?
Ms. Rosen. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Rosen votes nay.
Mr. McNerney?
Mr. McNerney. No.
The Clerk. Mr. McNerney votes nay.
Mr. Perlmutter?
Mr. Perlmutter. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Perlmutter votes nay.
Mr. Tonko?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Foster?
Mr. Foster. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Foster votes nay.
Mr. Takano?
Mr. Takano. Nay.
The Clerk. Mr. Takano votes nay.
Ms. Hanabusa?
Ms. Hanabusa. Nay.
The Clerk. Ms. Hanabusa votes nay.
Mr. Crist?
Mr. Crist. Nay.
The Clerk. Mr. Crist votes nay.
Chairman Smith. The gentleman from Kentucky. The gentleman
is not recorded yet.
Mr. Massie. Yes?
Chairman Smith. That is the correct vote. Thank you.
The Clerk. Mr. Massie votes aye.
Chairman Smith. And the clerk will continue to report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, 17 Members vote aye; 12 Members
vote nay.
Chairman Smith. OK. The ayes have it, and the bill is
reported favorably.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Without objection, the Motion to Reconsider is laid upon
the table. H.R. 1430 is ordered reported to the House, and I
ask unanimous consent that staff authorized to make any
necessary technical and conforming changes, and without
objection, so ordered.
Before we go to the next bill, I just was going to say to
the Members of the Committee that we have in our audience today
a high school class--seniors--from Burke, Virginia, and I want
to say to the seniors from Burke, Virginia, that you are going
to hear some strong language today when we talk about these
bills. We don't take it personally, or we try not to. People do
have legitimate differences of opinion. Bills are not always
bipartisan although I will say on behalf of this Committee that
of the 23 bills enacted last year that were produced by this
Committee, 17 of the 23 were bipartisan. But today's bills do
not enjoy that particular rank but I just want the students to
know this is all part of our general debate and we understand
it, we accept it, and we're still friends.
H.R. 1431
Chairman Smith. And so we will now go to the next bill, and
pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 1431, the EPA Science
Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017, and the clerk will report
the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 1431, a bill to amend the Environmental
Research Development and Demonstration Authorization Act of
1978 to provide for a Science Advisory Board----
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the bill is considered
as read and open for amendment at any point. And I'll now
recognize the sponsor of the bill, the Vice Chairman of the
Science Committee, Mr. Lucas, for an opening statement.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Chairman Smith, for bringing this
important legislation to a markup. H.R. 1431, the Science
Advisory Board Reform Act, ensures that the most qualified and
capable scientists are free to undertake a balanced and open
review of regulatory science.
The Science Advisory Board was created in 1978 to provide
independent expert advice on scientific and technical
information. This information is used to justify important
policy decisions and should be held to a high standard.
In the subsequent decades and years, there have been
serious deficiencies with the SAB and the process to select
Board Members. Among other issues, there has been limited
public participation, EPA interference with expert advice, and
potential conflicts of interest. If the EPA undermines the
Board's independence or prevents it from providing candid
advice to Congress, then the SAB serves no value to the EPA.
The Board should be free to function as intended to ensure that
sound science is driving policy decisions. We must reaffirm the
Board's independence so that the public can be confident that
policy decisions are not hijacked by a predetermined political
agenda. It's time to update the law to restore scientific
integrity to the process and independence to the Board.
In the previous Congress, a substantially similar bill
passed the House with bipartisan support. This time around, we
worked to revise this bill to ensure the best advisory process
for the SAB. The Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017
addresses SAB shortcomings and deficiencies by guaranteeing a
well-balanced expert panel, increasing transparency, and
encouraging public participation. This employs--this empowers
the experts to provide meaningful and unbiased scientific
advice.
This Act also addresses the need for Board membership from
State, local and tribal governments. Currently on the chartered
SAB, there are only two members representing States. The fact
that States like my home State of Oklahoma have no Board
members, even though we play a prominent role in the
agriculture and energy industries, both of which are heavily
regulated by the EPA, is troubling.
Furthermore, this bill prevents current SAB members from
holding EPA contracts or grants as well as from receiving those
funds within 3 years following the end of that member's service
on the Board.
The bill also ensures that uncertainties in scientific
conclusions are clearly communicated and allows the expert
panel to focus on the science, rather than partisan policy
debates.
The language also codifies a requirement of the Board to
respond to dissenting scientific views, and for comments to be
published in the Federal Register. For ease of public access,
these comments will be grouped by common theme and will not
include reprinting of repetitious comments.
This legislation recognizes the important role science
should play to inform policy debates. The safeguards provided
in this bill will ensure public confidence by requiring the use
of sound science when informing regulatory decisions. This Act
restores the SAB as an important defender of scientific
integrity. This common--these commonsense reforms will make
EPA's decisions more credible and balanced.
Prepared Statement of Mr. Lucas
I thank Chairman Smith for bringing this important
legislation to a markup.
H.R. 1431, The Science Advisory Board Reform Act, ensures
that the most qualified and capable scientists are free to
undertake a balanced and open review of regulatory science.
The Science Advisory Board (or S-A-B) was created in 1978
to provide independent expert advice on scientific and
technical information. This information is used to justify
important policy decisions and should be held to a high
standard.
In the subsequent decades and years, there have been
serious deficiencies with the SAB and the process to select
Board Members. Among other issues, there has been limited
public participation, EPA interference with expert advice, and
potential conflicts of interest. If the EPA undermines the
Board's independence or prevents it from providing candid
advice to Congress, then the SAB serves no value to the EPA.
The Board should be free to function as intended to ensure
that sound science is driving policy decisions. We must
reaffirm the Board's independence so that the public can be
confident that policy decisions are not hi-jacked by a pre-
determined political agenda.
It's time to update the law to restore scientific integrity
to the process and independence to the Board.
In the previous Congress, a substantially similar bill
passed the House with bipartisan support. This time around, we
worked to revise this bill to ensure the best advisory process
for the SAB.
The Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017 addresses SAB
shortcomings and deficiencies by guaranteeing a well-balanced
expert panel, increasing transparency, and encouraging public
participation. This empowers the experts to provide meaningful
and unbiased scientific advice.
This Act also addresses the need for Board membership from
state, local and tribal governments. Currently on the Chartered
SAB, there are only two members representing States. The fact
that states like my home state of Oklahoma have no
Board members, even though we play a prominent role in the
agriculture and energy industries, both of which are heavily
regulated by the EPA, is troubling. Furthermore, this bill
prevents current SAB members from holding EPA grants or
contracts, as well as from receiving those funds within three
years following the end of that member's service on the Board.
The bill also ensures that uncertainties in scientific
conclusions are clearly communicated and allows the expert
panel to focus on the science, rather than partisan policy
debates. The language also codifies a requirement of the Board
to respond to dissenting scientific views, and for comments to
be published in the Federal Register. For ease of public
access, these comments will be grouped by common theme and will
not include reprinting of repetitious comments.
This legislation recognizes the important role science
should play to inform policy debates. The safeguards provided
in this bill will ensure public confidence, by requiring the
use of sound science when informing regulatory decisions. This
act restores the SAB as an important defender of scientific
integrity.
These common sense reforms will make EPA's decisions more
credible and balanced.
Mr. Lucas. And without objection, Mr. Chairman, I would
like to add the following letters of support for H.R. 1431 into
the record.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the letter will be made
a part of the record.
Mr. Lucas. The Farm Bureau, the Portland Cement
Association, the National Sand and Gravel Association, Small
Business and Entrepreneurship Council, the National Association
of Homebuilders, Dr. Pat Michaels, Professor Will Harper, the
American Exploration Production Council, the Independent
Petroleum Association of America, and the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Lucas.
The gentlewoman from Texas, the Ranking Member, Ms.
Johnson, is recognized for her opening statement.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Like the HONEST Act, I strongly oppose the Science Advisory
Reform Act, and, at the core, I oppose this bill for many of
the same reasons. This bill is a transparent attempt to slow
down the regulatory process and stack science review boards
with industry representative. The result would be similar to
the HONEST Act: Worse science at the EPA and less public health
protections for American citizens.
The problems with this legislation are three-fold. First,
the bill makes it easier for industry representatives to serve
on science advisory boards by only requiring them to disclose
their conflicts of interest. I have no problem with industry
representation on these advisory boards, and in fact, under the
requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Acts, science
advisory panels are required to be balanced of composition.
However, this bill would allow unlimited participation by
financially conflicted industry representatives, and that is a
part I cannot support.
The second major problem with this legislation is that it
would make it much more difficult for scientists with
extramural research grants from EPA to serve on the Board. This
prohibition is likely to eliminate consideration of the top
scientists in the relevant fields serving on science advisory
boards. In conjunction with the loosened industry financial
conflict requirements, this prohibition will result in science
advisory panels with less qualified scientists and more
conflicts of interest.
Finally, this legislation contains incredibly burdensome
public comment requirements. The bill prevents comment cutoff
dates, requires detailed review and reporting of comments, and
requires the advisory panels to respond to any significant
comments, especially those that run counter to mainstream
science. The end result of this is to delay the Science
Advisory Board's reviews and force the agency to expend
resources it simply does not have.
We are in an unprecedented time right now. For the past
three Congresses, the Chairman of this Majority--his Majority
colleagues on the Science Committee have repeatedly attacked
the ability of the EPA to use the best available science to
improve public health. We now have a President who has attacked
mainstream scientific views repeatedly. The threats to the
scientific enterprise in America right now are profound. These
threats have the potential to do great damage to American
industry, American competitiveness, and the health of our
citizens.
I will vigorously oppose these efforts every step of the
way, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Prepared Statement of Ms. Johnson
Like the HONEST Act, I strongly oppose the Science Advisory
Reform Act. And, at the core, I oppose this bill for many of
the same reasons. This bill is a transparent attempt to slow
down the regulatory process and stack science review boards
with industry representative. The result would be similar to
the HONEST Act--worse science at the EPA and less public health
protections for American citizens.
The problems with this legislation are three-fold. First,
the bill makes it easier for industry representatives to serve
on science advisory boards by only requiring them to disclose
their conflicts of interest. I have no problem with industry
representation on these advisory boards, and in fact, under the
requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Acts, science
advisory panels are required to have a balanced composition.
However, this bill would allow unlimited participation by
financially conflicted industry representatives, and that I
cannot support.
The second major problem with this legislation is that it
would make it much more difficult for scientists with
extramural research grants from EPA to serve on the board. This
prohibition is likely to eliminate consideration of the top
scientists in the relevant fields serving on science advisory
boards. In conjunction with the loosened industry financial
conflict requirements, this prohibition will result in science
advisory panels with less qualified scientists and more
conflicts of interest.
Finally, this legislation contains incredibly burdensome
public comment requirements. The bill prevents comment cutoff
dates, requires detailed review and reporting of comments, and
requires the advisory panels to respond to any significant
comments, especially those that run counter to mainstream
science. The end result of this is to delay the SABs' reviews
and force the agency to expend resources it simply doesn't
have.
We are in an unprecedented time right now. For the past
three Congresses the Chairman and his Majority colleagues on
the Science Committee have repeatedly attacked the ability of
the EPA to use the best available science to improve public
health. We now have a President who has attacked mainstream
scientific views repeatedly. The threats to the scientific
enterprise in America right now are profound. These threats
have the potential to do great damage to American industry,
American competitiveness, and the health of our citizens. I
will vigorously oppose these efforts every step of the way, and
I urge my colleagues to do the same.
I yield back
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
Is there anyone who wishes to offer an amendment or be
recognized?
Ms. Bonamici. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. The gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici,
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want
to start by thanking Mr. Lucas for his goal of having a diverse
functioning Science Advisory Board at the EPA. It's a laudable
goal.
Unfortunately, this particular bill is not going to do what
the intent is, and it has many problems that the Ranking Member
pointed out, and I just want to point out, as recognized by
several letters in opposition including one from the American
Lung Association, that this bill is going to add this notice
and comment component to all parts of the Board's actions, and
that causes a burdensome and unnecessary requirement. The
reviews of the major issues are already covered under public
notice and comment. It's going to discourage people from
participating.
And also, as the Union of Concerned Scientists points out,
this legislation explicitly allows experts with financial ties
to corporations that are affected by Science Advisory Board
assessments, they are not excluded from the Boards, but
scientists, academic experts who have experience, are
prohibited, and that essentially turns, as the Union of
Concerned Scientists says, the idea of conflict of interest on
its head because there's a presumption that corporate experts
with direct financial interest are not conflicted but academics
who work on these issues are.
So I suggest that we go back to the drawing board and find
a way to improve the Science Advisory Board that doesn't have
these problems that are going to result in industry experts but
not academic scientific experts on the Science Advisory Boards.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici.
Anybody else? The gentleman from Illinois, Dr. Foster, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Foster. Yes. I move to strike the last word.
I'd just like to briefly point out that according to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 1.54 million professors
in the United States, so the fact that the sponsors of this
bill were able to find one of those 1.54 million professors
that support this bill I think speaks volumes about the level
of support by academics and scientists for this bill.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Foster.
The gentlewoman from Connecticut, Ms. Esty, is recognized.
Ms. Esty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the
last word.
Chairman Smith. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Esty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, I agree with my colleague, Mr. Lucas, that we do
want to have diverse viewpoints reflected in the Science
Advisory Board. However, as many of my colleagues have noted,
this bill, I think, fails to achieve that.
I want to note for a moment the resource question. This
imposes new requirements, extends and basically eliminates any
timeline for comments, and an obligation to respond. At the
same time, no additional resources are called for, and that
does not even begin to address the fact that the incoming
Administration has proposed a 25 percent cut in agency
resources--25 percent. And I think it is irresponsible for this
Committee to impose additional burdens of reporting and
response at the same time not only not offering resources but
backing budget proposals that would do massive cut in
resources.
I am very concerned about the conflicts of interest that
are being proposed here. To have paid industry experts be
considered independent and to have scientists who--and I have a
husband who works at your alma mater, Mr. Chairman, and I can
tell you, professors have to raise grant money all the time for
their research. One of the few places they can do that--if
you're a climate scientist or if you are looking at
epidemiology at Yale, you often are seeking Federal grants.
That's the only way you're going to get your research done. And
yet this proposal I'm afraid would disqualify such people not
only from voting on grants involving themselves, which is of
course completely appropriate, but would be an out-and-out ban.
We are going to be depriving the independent Science
Advisory Board of exactly the kind of capability that we need
to have, and I think we're all already to work with Mr. Lucas
and with you, Mr. Chairman, on what we can do to diversify. If
there are sectors that feel they've been excluded, we should
work on that, but this is overly broad, will be dangerous to
the independence of science, exclude much of the expertise we
need to have, too broad a brush and no resources, in fact, at
the same time we're expecting a cut in resources.
So I respectfully must urge my colleagues to vote against
this bill.
Thank you very much, and I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Esty.
If the gentleman from Texas will withdraw his request for
time, I'd like to recognize----
Mr. Babin. Sure.
Chairman Smith [continuing]. Someone on the other first.
The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Beyer, is recognized.
Mr. Beyer. I feel bad taking time from the gentleman from
Texas, but I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Mr. Beyer is recognized.
Mr. Beyer. And I just want to associate myself with the
remarks of Ms. Bonamici and Ms. Esty, that while I very much
respect Mr. Lucas's leadership on this bill, and I want to vote
for it, but for the dilemma that we are now bringing industry
representatives in as long as there's a clear disclosure of
conflict of interest and yet completely excluding professors
who may well have a conflict of interest even because they may
be working in the future. It seems that we have tilted the
scales upside down, and if what should be good for the goose,
good for the gander, that if there's a disclosure, that that's
the principle of participation, then let's make that fair for
the professors also.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Beyer.
Are there other Members who wish to be recognized? If not,
the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Babin, is recognized.
Mr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to yield my
time to the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Lucas.
Mr. Lucas. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding,
and I've listened to the very focused and sincere points by my
colleagues, but I'd have to note to everyone as we work our way
through this markup, this bill does not change the fact that
the EPA still chooses the members of the Board, and the issue
about are the best professionals being ignored and their
insights being not used is of great concern to me.
The bill also seeks to balance transparency, and we've
talked about that, in the makeup and composition of the Board.
In fact, financial conflicts of interest are specifically
prohibited in the language, and in addition to the prohibition
on conflicted individuals from participating, the bill most
importantly, I think, requires members' disclosure. Let us all
know what their economic interests are in the process of being
on the Board.
Now, we've talked about the grants and the money, and I
would remind my colleagues, considering the magnitude of the
recent direct grants given to members of the SAB and the Clean
Air Scientific Advisory Committee, in the past as many as 60
percent have received grants worth almost $140 million. So
perhaps we should, if anything, err on the side of balancing
those concerns.
Now, I know there's a legitimate concern also in the text
about the unlimited comment period, but I would tell you rather
that it attempts to prevent arbitrary efforts to silence
important concerns. The bill does not require the Board to
respond to every comment, only to make their responses to
significant comments that are based on the hypothesis-based
science publicly available. I think that's a very important
distinction.
And the public's right to know. Let's be honest, it is
important that that the public have access to this information
so that they have confidence in the results. If we're asking
decisions to be made that affect their lives every day at home
and at business, then they have the right, I think, to have
confidence and that experience will add to it.
And furthermore, I'd leave one last thought to all my
colleagues here. Many of you don't know the new EPA Director
personally. He is a very energetic, very bright attorney.
Elections have consequences. If perhaps in the last session you
were concerned about what this would do to the EPA, I would
suggest to you, you should be with me now to potentially
address your concerns from this point on.
Just food for thought as I ask my colleagues to pass the
bill, and I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Lucas.
If there are no amendments, a reporting quorum being
present, I move that the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology report H.R. 1431 to the House with the
recommendation that the bill be approved.
The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 1431 to the
House.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, nay.
The ayes have it. The bill is ordered reported favorably
but a roll call vote has been requested, and the clerk will
call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Smith?
Chairman Smith. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes aye.
Mr. Lucas?
Mr. Lucas. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Lucas votes aye.
Mr. Rohrabacher?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Brooks?
Mr. Brooks. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Brooks votes aye.
Mr. Hultgren?
Mr. Hultgren. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Hultgren votes aye.
Mr. Posey?
Mr. Posey. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Posey votes aye.
Mr. Massie?
Mr. Massie. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Massie votes aye.
Mr. Bridenstine?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Weber?
Mr. Weber. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Weber votes aye.
Mr. Knight?
Mr. Knight. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Knight votes aye.
Mr. Babin?
Mr. Babin. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Babin votes aye.
Mrs. Comstock?
Mrs. Comstock. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Comstock votes aye.
Mr. Palmer?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk?
Mr. Loudermilk. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk votes aye.
Mr. Abraham?
Mr. Abraham. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Abraham votes aye.
Mr. LaHood?
Mr. LaHood. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. LaHood votes aye.
Mr. Webster?
Mr. Webster. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Webster votes aye.
Mr. Banks?
Mr. Banks. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Banks votes aye.
Mr. Biggs?
Mr. Biggs. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes aye.
Mr. Marshall?
Mr. Marshall. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Marshall votes aye.
Mr. Dunn?
Mr. Dunn. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Dunn votes aye.
Mr. Higgins?
Mr. Higgins. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Higgins votes aye.
Ms. Johnson?
Ms. Johnson. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes no.
Ms. Lofgren?
Ms. Lofgren. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren votes no.
Mr. Lipinski?
Mr. Lipinski. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Lipinski votes no.
Ms. Bonamici?
Ms. Bonamici. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Bonamici votes no.
Mr. Bera?
Mr. Bera. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Bera votes no.
Ms. Esty?
Ms. Esty. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Esty votes no.
Mr. Veasey?
Mr. Veasey. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Veasey votes no.
Mr. Beyer?
Mr. Beyer. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Beyer votes no.
Ms. Rosen?
Ms. Rosen. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Rosen votes no.
Mr. McNerney?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Perlmutter?
Mr. Perlmutter. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Perlmutter votes no.
Mr. Tonko?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Foster?
Mr. Foster. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Foster votes no.
Mr. Takano?
Mr. Takano. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Takano votes no.
Ms. Hanabusa?
Ms. Hanabusa. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Hanabusa votes no.
Mr. Crist?
Mr. Crist. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Crist votes no.
Chairman Smith. The clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, 19 Members vote aye; 14 Members
vote nay.
Chairman Smith. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered
reported favorably.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Without objection, the Motion to Reconsider is laid upon
the table. H.R. 1431 is ordered reported to the House, and I
ask unanimous consent that staff authorized to make any
necessary technical and conforming changes, and without
objection, so ordered.
Before we adjourn, I just want to thank all Members on both
sides for their attendance today. I really appreciate
everybody's being here. This is good for the Committee. It's
good for the Members to hear the debate as well.
If there is no further discussion, that completes our
business, and we stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:24 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
H.R. 1430, H.R. 1431
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE
MARKUP ON H.R. 2105
NIST SMALL BUSINESS
CYBERSECURITY ACT OF 2017
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 2, 2017
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Chairman Smith. With the agreement of the Ranking Member
and with the understanding that other Members are on their way,
we're going to start our markup.
The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will come
to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recess at any time, and without objection, the Chair is
authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any time.
Pursuant to Committee Rule II(e) and House Rule
112(2)(h)(4), the Chair announces that he may postpone roll
call votes.
Today we meet to consider H.R. 2105, the NIST Small
Business Cybersecurity Act of 2017.
H.R. 2105
Chairman Smith. Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R.
2105, the NIST Small Business Cybersecurity Act of 2017. The
clerk will report the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 2105, a bill to require the Director of the
National Institute of Standards and Technology to disseminate
guidance to help reduce----
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the bill is considered
as read and open for amendment at any point.
I'll recognize myself for an opening statement.
Welcome to today's Full Committee markup of H.R. 2105, the
NIST Small Business Cybersecurity Act of 2017. I thank the
gentleman from Florida, Mr. Webster, for introducing this
important and timely bipartisan bill.
This bill directs the National Institute of Standards and
Technology to provide small businesses with cybersecurity
guidelines, tools, best practices, standards, and methodologies
necessary to better protect themselves. This guidance will be
made publicly available on NIST's and other relevant agencies'
websites.
Small businesses are frequently the target of cyber-
attacks, but these businesses often do not have sufficient
information to adequately monitor and protect their computer
systems.
This week we celebrate National Small Business Week, a
decades-long tradition recognizing the many contributions made
to the American economy by small businesses. Small businesses
help produce a thriving economy that benefits our entire
country. They bring innovative ideas, cutting-edge products and
services, and jobs to the marketplace.
In my home State, for example, there are more than 2.4
million small businesses that employ almost 4-1/2 million
Texans.
But even as they become more innovative, sophisticated, and
productive, small businesses are drawing unwanted attention
from cybercriminals. These hackers attempt to take advantage of
the small businesses' limited capabilities and cyber
inexperience as compared to their larger counterparts.
According to the U.S. National Cyber Security Alliance, 60
percent of small businesses go bankrupt 6 months after a cyber-
attack. And another institute notes that recovering from a
cyber-attack can cost the average small business $690,000; for
middle market companies, that cost is more than $1 million.
Today's legislation engages the services of NIST to help
small businesses reduce their cybersecurity risks.
NIST experts developed a Cybersecurity Framework through
collaborations between the government and private sector. This
Framework is accepted and used by many private organizations to
address and manage their cybersecurity risk in a cost-effective
way. The guidance described in this bill to help small
businesses is based on the NIST Cybersecurity Framework.
H.R. 2105 is similar to Senate bill S. 770, the MAIN STREET
Cybersecurity Act, which the Senate Commerce, Science, and
Transportation Committee favorably reported unanimously by
voice vote last month. Representative Webster's bill,
cosponsored by Research and Technology Subcommittee Chairwoman
Barbara Comstock and Ranking Member Dan Lipinski, serves an
important purpose by helping to protect small businesses from
cybersecurity attacks. I thank them for their initiative on
this issue and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2105.
Prepared Statement of Chairman Smith
Good morning and welcome to today's Full Committee markup
of H.R. 2105, the NIST Small Business Cybersecurity Act of
2017. I thank the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Webster, for
introducing this important and timely bipartisan bill.
This bill directs the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) to provide small businesses with
cybersecurity guidelines, tools, best practices, standards, and
methodologies necessary to better protect themselves.
This guidance will be made publicly available on NIST's and
other relevant agencies' websites.
Small businesses are frequently the target of cyber-
attacks, but these businesses often do not have sufficient
information to adequately monitor and protect their computer
systems.
This week we celebrate National Small Business Week, a
decades-long tradition recognizing the many contributions made
to the American economy by small businesses.
Small businesses help produce a thriving economy that
benefits our entire country. They bring innovative ideas,
cutting-edge products and services, and jobs to the
marketplace. In my home state, for example, there are more than
2.4 million small businesses that employ almost four and a half
million Texans.
But even as they become more innovative, sophisticated, and
productive, small businesses are drawing unwanted attention
from cybercriminals. These hackers attempt to take advantage of
the small businesses' limited capabilities and cyber
inexperience as compared to their larger counterparts.
According to the U.S. National Cyber Security Alliance, 60%
of small businesses go bankrupt six months after a cyber-
attack. And the Ponemon Institute notes that recovering from a
cyber-attack can cost the average small business $690,000; for
middle market companies, that cost is more than $1 million.
Today's legislation engages the services of NIST to help
small businesses reduce their cybersecurity risks.
NIST experts developed a Cybersecurity Framework, through
collaborations between the government and private sector. This
Framework is accepted and used by many private organizations to
address and manage their cybersecurity risk in a costeffective
way. The guidance described in this bill to help small
businesses is based on the NIST Cybersecurity Framework.
H.R. 2105 is similar to Senate bill S.770, the MAIN STREET
Cybersecurity Act, which the Senate Commerce, Science, and
Transportation Committee favorably reported unanimously by
voice vote last month.
Representative Webster's bill, cosponsored by Research and
Technology Subcommittee Chairwoman Barbara Comstock and Ranking
Member Dan Lipinski, serves an important purpose by helping to
protect small businesses from cybersecurity attacks. I thank
them for their initiative on this issue and I urge my
colleagues to support H.R. 2105.
Chairman Smith. The Ranking Member, the gentlewoman from
Texas, Eddie Bernice Johnson, is recognized for her opening
statement.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
H.R. 2105, the NIST Small Business Cybersecurity Act of
2017, addresses a significant need to provide more guidance,
resources, and tools to small businesses to secure their
information systems and protect the personal information of
their customers.
According to the Small Business Administration, the 28
million small businesses in America account for 54 percent of
all U.S. sales. Small businesses provide 55 percent of all jobs
and 66 percent of all net new jobs since 1970. Small businesses
play a central role in our economy. Unfortunately, the
information systems and networks of small businesses are
especially vulnerable. Small businesses rarely have trained
cybersecurity employees and often do not prioritize
cybersecurity or have the resources to do so.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology, or
NIST, has been a leader in developing standards and guidelines
for cybersecurity in the public and private sectors before the
word ``cybersecurity'' was even part of our policy vocabulary.
In 2009, NIST developed a guidance document called, Small
Business Information Security: The Fundamentals. The document
was the result of an interagency effort and was designed to
present the fundamentals of an effective small business
information security program in non-technical language.
In 2014, in response to an Executive Order from President
Obama, NIST published the Cybersecurity Framework for Critical
Infrastructure, which we have discussed extensively in this
Committee. The Cybersecurity Framework is most useful for
larger businesses with at least some information technology
expertise. Therefore, in November 2016, NIST published an
update of their small business guidance document, using the
Framework as a template.
In addition to this guidance, NIST assists small businesses
directly through their work at the Cybersecurity Center for
Excellence in Gaithersburg, Maryland.
Further, under the National Initiative for Cybersecurity
Education, NIST leads an activity they call the Small Business
Corner. In collaboration with the Small Business Administration
and the FBI, they conduct training meetings on computer
security for small businesses.
H.R. 2105 is consistent with all of those ongoing
activities at NIST and with the agency's mission. Ideally, H.R.
2105 would also provide resources for NIST to expand these
activities, because the need is clear.
Unfortunately, the Majority has once again brought up a
bill directing the agency to do more with less. If this just
happened occasionally, it might not be a problem. Every agency
should periodically assess their programs and identify
opportunities to reprioritize funding and implement new
efficiencies. However, with respect to NIST in particular, the
Majority has piled on one significant new responsibility after
another, without providing additional funding. And now, based
on the Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Blueprint, we anticipate
damaging cuts to NIST from the Trump Administration.
I am pleased that we can agree on a bipartisan basis that
NIST is an important agency that does excellent work across
many areas with a relatively small budget. I just wish we could
also agree that money does not grow on the trees at the NIST
campus. We must be prepared to pay for what we value, or we
will simply not accomplish the laudable goals of this
legislation or any other activities we deem to be priorities.
Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 2105, and I thank the
sponsors, including Mr. Webster, Mr. Lipinski, and Ms. Rosen,
and their strong support for small businesses and NIST's
important role in cybersecurity. However, I am concerned that
the House bill contains an explicit underfunded mandate clause
and that the Senate version is silent on funding. I hope that
if we have the opportunity to negotiate a conference agreement,
both bodies will see fit to provide NIST with adequate
resources to fulfill the mandates in this legislation.
I thank you, and yield back.
Prepared Statement of Ms. Johnson
Thank you Mr. Chairman. H.R. 2105, the NIST Small Business
Cybersecurity Act of 2017, addresses a significant need to
provide more guidance, resources, and tools to small businesses
to secure their information systems and protect the personal
information of their customers. According to the Small Business
Administration, the 28 million small businesses in America
account for 54 percent of all U.S. sales. Small businesses
provide 55 percent of all jobs and 66 percent of all net new
jobs since the 1970s. Small businesses play a central role in
our economy. Unfortunately, the information systems and
networks of small businesses are especially vulnerable. Small
businesses rarely have trained cybersecurity employees and
often do not prioritize cybersecurity or have the resources to
do so. The National Institute of Standards and Technology, or
NIST, has been a leader in developing standards and guidelines
for cybersecurity in the public and private sectors before the
word cybersecurity was even part of our policy vocabulary. In
2009, NIST developed a guidance document called, Small Business
Information Security: The Fundamentals. The document was the
result of an interagency effort and was designed to present the
fundamentals of an effective small business information
security program in non-technical language. In 2014, in
response to an Executive Order from President Obama, NIST
published the Cybersecurity Framework for Critical
Infrastructure, which we have discussed extensively in this
Committee. The Cybersecurity Framework is most useful for
larger businesses with at least some information technology
expertise. Therefore, in November 2016, NIST published an
update of their small business guidance document, using the
Framework as a template. In addition to this guidance, NIST
assists small businesses directly through their work at the
Cybersecurity Center for Excellence in Gaithersburg, Maryland.
Furthermore, under the National Initiative for Cybersecurity
Education, NIST leads an activity they call the ``Small
Business Corner.'' In collaboration with the Small Business
Administration and the FBI, they conduct training meetings on
computer security for small businesses. H.R. 2105 is consistent
with all of these ongoing activities at NIST and with the
agency's mission. Ideally, H.R. 2105 would also provide
resources for NIST to expand these activities, because the need
is clear. Unfortunately, the Majority has once again brought up
a bill directing the agency to do more with less. If this just
happened occasionally, it might not be a problem. Every agency
should periodically assess their programs and identify
opportunities to reprioritize funding and implement new
efficiencies. However, with respect to NIST in particular, the
Majority has piled on one significant new responsibility
after another, without providing additional funding. And now,
based on the FY 2018 Budget Blueprint, we anticipate damaging
cuts to NIST from the Trump Administration. I am pleased that
we can agree on a bipartisan basis that NIST is an important
agency that does excellent work across many areas with a
relatively small budget. I just wish we could also agree that
money does not grow on the trees at the NIST campus. We must be
prepared to pay for what we value, or we will simply not
accomplish the laudable goals of this legislation or any other
activities we deem to be priorities. Mr. Chairman, I support
H.R. 2105, and I thank the sponsors, including Mr. Webster, Mr.
Lipinski, and Ms. Rosen, for their strong support for small
businesses and NIST's important role in cybersecurity. However,
I am concerned that the House bill contains an explicit
unfunded mandate clause and that the Senate version is silent
on funding. I hope that if we have the opportunity to negotiate
a conference agreement, both bodies will see fit to provide
NIST with adequate resources to fulfill the mandates in this
legislation. With that I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson, and the sponsor of
the bill, the gentlemen from Florida, Mr. Webster, is
recognized for a statement.
Mr. Webster. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for
scheduling this markup, especially timely since this is
National Small Business Week.
America's small businesses are the backbone of our economy
accounting for 54 percent of the American sales and 55 percent
of American jobs. Unfortunately, small businesses are
especially vulnerable and some reports note that it's 43
percent of cyber-attacks specifically target them.
H.R. 2105, the National Institute of Standards and
Technology Small Business Cybersecurity Act of 2017, will help
small businesses better address their cybersecurity risks to
help them survive and thrive in the face of such adversary.
As an owner of a multi-generational, three-generational air
conditioning and heating business, I understand firsthand the
importance of equipping and empowering small businesses to
tackle these challenges.
Just a few months ago, one of my associates came in to our
office, and on the screen it says your computer has been
hacked, your data is frozen, and pay us a certain amount of
money, a pretty good bit of money, by 24 hours or we're going
to destroy it. So that was a little bit of a concern, and--but
I wasn't going to pay a ransom so I told our people let's see
what we can do, so it ended up, we had a 2-day-old jump drive
where we had backed up by chance all of the data that had been
frozen, so we--our IT guy wiped the hard disk, put the new data
on, and then we re-upped it. It took us--we had to put the last
2 days of business on there, and it worked out. However, I
think with the information that we could get from NIST and this
bill if it were in place, we would have been better prepared to
know what to do and how to do it so that the incident never
happened to begin with.
So I know that there are thousands and thousands of
businesses across the country who are seeing that every day.
When they walk into their office, they have a ransom note, and
many--I ended up talking to one person who had paid that
ransom, and they were sad they did because about--they released
their data, everything was fine, and 3 months later they did it
again. So this is a thriving, awful business that's being used
to be--that's perpetrated some pretty bad things against small
businesses who are just trying to make a living.
So this bill, H.R. 2105, will provide small businesses in
my district and across the State and across the country with
the tools they need to actually circumvent these threats and
challenges of the modern world, and I think a lot of times
myself and my sons that run our business now tend to think, you
know, this is only for big business, these are all the
businesses that get highlighted on the news every night, that's
the only ones that are at risk, and never really thought about
the fact that we as a small business were at risk and knew
nothing about these ransom notes that were being done.
So there's a similar bill in the Senate that's moving
alone, MAIN STREET Cybersecurity Act. It's supported by the
Small Business Administration, the National Restaurant
Association, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, International Technique
Group, and the Chamber of International Techni groups that have
also come out in support of this H.R. 2105 and Senate 770,
which passed the Senate's Commerce, Science and Transportation
Committee in April by a voice vote.
I ask my colleagues to similarly support H.R. 2015 in a
bipartisan manner so that we may prepare it for the House floor
Action.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for bringing up this bill
and supporting this important bill today to help small
businesses.
I yield back the rest of my time.
Prepared Statement of Mr. Webster
Thank you Mr. Chairman for scheduling this markup today -
it is especially timely as we celebrate National Small Business
Week.
America's small businesses are the backbone of our economy
accounting for 54 percent of all American sales and 55 percent
of American jobs. Unfortunately, small businesses are
especially vulnerable, with some reports noting that 43 percent
of cyber attacks specifically target them.
H.R. 2105, the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) Small Business Cybersecurity Act of 2017,
will help small businesses better address their cybersecurity
risks to help them survive - and thrive - in the face of such
adversity.
As an owner of a multi-generational family air conditioning
and heating business, I understand first-hand the importance of
equipping and empowering small businesses to tackle challenges,
so that they can grow and prosper. Thus, a couple weeks ago, I
introduced H.R. 2105 with the support and cosponsorship of many
of my colleagues on the Committee, including Chairman Smith,
Chairwoman Comstock, and Ranking Member Lipinski.
H.R. 2105 will provide small businesses in my district,
state and across the country with the tools they need to meet
the threats and challenges of the modern world.
The bill:
Ldescribes the vital role played by small
businesses in the U.S. economy, the devastating impact of
cyberattacks on a majority of small businesses, and the need to
develop simplified resources to help them;
Ldirects the NIST Director - within a year of the
Act's enactment - to disseminate clear and concise resources,
which are defined as guidelines, tools, best practices,
standards, methodologies, and other ways of providing
information.
LDissemination would be in consultation with
heads of other Federal agencies.
LThese resources - based on the NIST Framework
for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity - will help
small businesses identify, assess, manage, and reduce their
cybersecurity risks.
H.R. 2105 also:
Lclarifies that use of the resources by small
businesses is voluntary;
Ldirects the NIST Director, and heads of Federal
agencies that so elect, to make the resources available on
their government websites; and
Lspecifies that no new funds are authorized to
carry out this Act.
This bill is very similar to Senate bill S.770, the MAIN
STREET Cybersecurity Act, which is supported by the National
Small Business Association, the National Restaurant
Association, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce - which also
supports H.R. 2105. S.770 passed the Senate Commerce, Science,
and Transportation Committee in April by a voice vote, and I
ask my colleagues to similarly support H.R. 2105 in a
bipartisan manner, so we may prepare it for House floor action.
Thank you again Mr. Chairman for bringing up and supporting
this important bill today to help small businesses. I yield
back the balance of my time.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Webster, and also, thank you
for recounting your personal experience in regard to the
subject at hand.
The gentlewoman from Nevada, Ms. Rosen, is recognized for a
statement.
Ms. Rosen. Thank you, Chairman Smith and Ranking Member
Johnson for holding today's markup on the NIST Small Business
Cybersecurity Act, a bill that I am very proud to cosponsor.
Last year, the majority of all targeted cyber-attacks were
directed at small businesses. What's even scarier is that 60
percent of small businesses successfully attacked, they
actually go out of business within 6 months.
Despite these facts, according to the National
Cybersecurity Alliance Survey, nearly six out of ten small
business, small-and medium-sized businesses, do not have a
contingency plan outlining their procedures for responding and
reporting data breach losses.
Many of these businesses do not have the resources to
invest in a dedicated IT staff with the expertise to monitor
and protect their computer systems. However, I believe with
proper guidance on how to develop an information security
program, small business can take the steps to protect their
employees and their customers.
That's why I'm a proud cosponsor of NIST Small Business
Cybersecurity Act. This bill requires the Director of National
Institute of Standards and Technology, known as NIST, to
provide small businesses with resources to identify and protect
their digital assets from cybersecurity threats.
H.R. 2105 creates a simple, voluntary set of guidelines
that are specifically tailored for use by small businesses. We
all know small businesses are the backbone of our economy in
southern Nevada. Las Vegas and the surrounding communities are
home to hundreds of local businesses employing actually over
400,000 workers in our State.
Unfortunately, over the past several years, our casinos,
our hotels and many of our other small businesses have suffered
from cyber-attacks. This legislation that we're reviewing today
would greatly benefit small-and medium-sized businesses in my
district, ensuring that they have the tools to protect
themselves from cybersecurity threats.
I thank you, and I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R.
2105.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Rosen.
We will now proceed with amendments in the order listed on
the roster. The first and only amendment offered by the
gentlemen from California, Mr. McNerney, and I want to thank
him for cosponsoring the bill, and the gentlemen is recognized.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the Chair, I thank Mr. Webster
and Mr. Rosen, and I have an amendment that will----
Chairman Smith. The clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2105 offered by Mr. McNerney
of California, amendment #042.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment as read,
and the gentlemen is recognized to explain his amendment.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a simple amendment, and it will improve the bill. It
requires that the resources that NIST provides to small
businesses include case studies of practical applications of
cyber protection and recovery.
Small businesses are becoming a major target of cyber-
attacks as we've heard. Small businesses are increasingly
adopting information technology to store, process and
communicate information. Although the proliferation of
technology has provided small businesses with many benefits, it
has also increased the attack surface for these cyber-attacks.
Small businesses are generally very limited in resources and
expertise. The owner of small businesses often are the only
ones who handle cybersecurity-related matters along with a wide
range of other responsibilities that Mr. Webster can attest to.
This is why it's critical that any information small
businesses are provided with on how to better protect their
companies against cyber-attacks be easy to understand and
apply. Giving examples of how other businesses of similar size
apply a particular cybersecurity guidance would be an important
step toward achieving that goal.
Small businesses are the engine of economic growth and job
creation in our Nation. In my district alone, there are over
31,000 small businesses. As Ms. Rosen mentioned, a recent study
found that 60 percent of small businesses go out of business
within 6 months of a cyber-attack. This suggests that if we
want to see improved economic growth, we must help small
businesses improve their cybersecurity.
As a cosponsor of 2105, I'm glad to see that we are
considering legislation aimed at improving cybersecurity
resources for small businesses. However, if we truly want to
help businesses better understand how to utilize resources,
it's important that these resources include case studies of
practical applications. My amendment addresses this, and I urge
my colleagues to support it, and I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. McNerney.
And the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Webster, is recognized.
Mr. Webster. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I believe this amendment offered by the gentlemen from
California, our colleague, is consistent with the desires of
this bill, and I think it also would aid in protecting from
cybersecurity attacks, and I support the amendment and I ask my
colleagues to do the same.
Chairman Smith. I'll recognize myself simply to say I think
this amendment improves an already good bill, and I appreciate
the gentlemen offering it.
Is there further discussion on the amendment?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment
offered by Mr. McNerney.
All in favor, say aye.
All opposed, no.
The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
If there are no further amendments, reporting quorum being
present, I move that the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology report H.R. 2105 to the House as amended with the
recommendation that the bill be approved.
The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 2105 to the
House as amended.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, nay.
The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered reported
favorably.
Without objection, the Motion to Reconsider is laid upon
the table. H.R. 2105 is ordered reported to the House, and I
ask unanimous consent that staff be authorized to make any
necessary technical and conforming changes. Without objection,
so ordered.
If there is no further discussion, that completes our
business of the day. Thank you all for being here, and we stand
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:21 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
H.R. 2105, Amendment Roster
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE
MARKUP ON H.R. 2809,
AMERICAN SPACE COMMERCE
FREE ENTERPRISE ACT OF 2017
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 8, 2017
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:14 p.m., in
room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar
Smith [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Chairman Smith. The Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recesses of the Committee at any time. Pursuant to Committee
Rule II(e) and House Rule 112(2)(h)(4), the Chair announces
that he may postpone roll call votes.
Today we meet to consider H.R. 2809, the American Space
Commerce Free Enterprise Act of 2017.
Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 2809, the American
Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act of 2017, and the clerk will
report the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 2809, a bill to amend Title 51, United
States Code, to provide for the authorization and supervision
of non-governmental space activities, and for other purposes.
Chairman Smith. And without objection, the bill is
considered as read and open for amendment at any point, and
I'll recognize myself for an opening statement.
H.R. 2809 establishes a legal and policy environment
intended to unleash American free enterprise and business,
assure conformity with Outer Space Treaty obligations, and
ensure that the United States will lead the world in commercial
space activities throughout the 21st century.
This bill will promote investment and innovation, resulting
in the creation of new high-paying and high-value jobs across
the country. It will increase American competitiveness and
attract companies, talent, and money that otherwise would have
gone to other countries. It ensures America and its work force
will benefit from the new space economy.
The problem this bill seeks to address is the kind of legal
uncertainty that arose after Bigelow Aerospace and Moon Express
sought payload approval from the Department of Transportation
for its non-traditional space activities. The payload review
and approval process is meant to prevent launches of payloads
that jeopardize American interests and safety. It is not
designed to satisfy the State Department's concerns about
complying with Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty. Under the
Treaty, signatories are to authorize and provide continuing
supervision of their country's non-governmental space
activities. In the case of Bigelow and Moon Express, the
executive branch stated that it would not be able to assure the
public that new and innovative space activities would be
approved for launch in the future.
The goal of this bill is not to regulate space broadly or
to address all of the possible future challenges that the
private sector will face in outer space. Doing so would be
premature and likely to stifle innovation and investment.
Instead, the bill takes a commonsense approach by establishing
a legal foundation upon which U.S. industry can flourish. It
establishes a transparent U.S. authorization and supervision
certification process for non-governmental space activities
that provides regulatory certainty for the U.S. commercial
space sector. It assures compliance with United States Outer
Space treaty obligations and addresses national security
concerns in the least burdensome manner possible.
The bill includes a provision that consolidates at the
Department of Commerce's Office of Space Commerce existing
regulatory authority spread across three different Federal
agencies now. America gets a one-stop shop for authorizing
activities that will take place in outer space. It also
streamlines remote sensing regulations to ensure that United
States national security is addressed not by holding America's
space industry back, but by empowering it to lead the world.
Absent this bill, American industry would continue to face
legal uncertainty. Innovation would be subject to a burdensome
and open-ended regulatory process, with no assurance of Outer
Space Treaty compliance.
An initial draft of the legislation before us now was
publicly presented over a month ago for any and all input. We
have spent the past month meeting, listening, and considering
specific, detailed comments from outside stakeholders,
interested Federal agencies, the Administration, and our
Committee colleagues including those from the Minority side of
this Committee. Many if not most of their recommendations and
requested changes have been included.
Over the past few days, we have received letters and
statements of support for the bill from the following entities:
AgileAero, Inc. Atmospheric and Environmental Research,
Atmospheric & Space Technology Research, Axiom Space, Bigelow
Aerospace, Blue Origin Carmel Research Center, the Commercial
Spaceflight Federation, which consists of hundreds of members,
Digital Globe, Inc. GeoOptics, Moon Express, Panasonic, Planet
Labs, Inc., Satellite Industry Association, Space Frontier
Foundation, Spaceport Strategies, Spire Global, Space
Environment Technologies, Space Florida, SpaceX, Students for
the Exploration and Development of Space, and TechFreedom.
Without objection, the letters we have received will be
included in the record. I want to thank these groups for their
support of the legislation.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Space Subcommittee Chairman Brian Babin and Representative
Jim Bridenstine are coauthors and original cosponsors of the
bill. They both have worked diligently for several years to
advance this legislation. I'm glad to have Representative
Perlmutter and former Science Committee Member Derek Kilmer as
original co-sponsors as well. It speaks to the hard work of all
Committee Members and staff in developing this common sense,
bipartisan, regulatory reform bill.
This transformative groundbreaking legislation declares in
word and intent that America is open for business in space. I
strongly recommend this bill and urge my colleagues to support
it.
Prepared Statement of Chairman Smith
Good afternoon. Today we mark-up H.R. 2809, the American
Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act of 2017.
H.R. 2809 establishes a legal and policy environment
intended to unleash American free enterprise and business,
assure conformity with Outer Space Treaty obligations, and
ensure that the United States will lead the world in commercial
space activities throughout the 21st century.
This bill will promote investment and innovation, resulting
in the creation of new high paying and high value jobs across
the country.
It will increase American competitiveness and attract
companies, talent, and money that otherwise would have gone to
other countries. It ensures America and its workforce will
benefit from the new space economy.
The problem this bill seeks to address is the kind of legal
uncertainty that arose after Bigelow Aerospace and Moon Express
sought payload approval from the Department of Transportation
for its non-traditional space activities.
The payload review and approval process is meant to prevent
launches of payloads that jeopardize American interests and
safety. It is not designed to satisfy the State Department's
concerns about complying with Article VI of the Outer Space
Treaty.
Under the Treaty, signatories are to authorize and provide
continuing supervision of their country's non-governmental
space activities. In the case of Bigelow and Moon Express, the
Executive Branch stated that it would not be able to assure the
public that new and innovative space activities would be
approved for launch in the future.
The goal of this bill is not to regulate space broadly or
to address all of the possible future challenges that the
private sector will face in outer space. Doing so would be
premature and likely stifle innovation and investment.
Instead, the bill takes a common sense approach by
establishing a legal foundation upon which U.S. industry can
flourish.
It establishes a transparent U.S. authorization and
supervision certification process for non-governmental space
activities that provides regulatory certainty for the U.S.
commercial space sector. It assures compliance with United
States Outer Space treaty obligations and addresses national
security concerns in the least burdensome manner possible.
The bill includes a provision that consolidates at the
Department of Commerce's Office of Space Commerce existing
regulatory authority spread across three different federal
agencies. America gets a ``one-stop shop'' for authorizing
activities that will take place in outer space.
It also streamlines remote sensing regulations to ensure
that United States national security is addressed not by
holding America's space industry back, but by empowering it to
lead the world.
Absent this bill, American industry would continue to face
legal uncertainty. Innovation would be subject to a burdensome
and open-ended regulatory process, with no assurance of Outer
Space Treaty compliance.
An initial draft of the legislation before us now was
publicly presented over a month ago for any and all input. We
have spent the past month meeting, listening, and considering
specific, detailed comments from outside stakeholders,
interested federal agencies, the Administration, and our
Committee colleagues including those from the minority side of
this Committee. Many if not most of their recommendations and
requested changes have been included.
Over the past few days, we have received letters and
statements of support for the bill from the following entities:
AgileAero, Inc.
Atmospheric and Environmental Research
Atmospheric & Space Technology Research
Axiom Space, LLC
Bigelow Aerospace, LLC
Blue Origin
Carmel Research Center, Inc.
The Commercial Spaceflight Federation
Digital Globe, Inc.
GeoOptics
Moon Express Inc.
Panasonic
Planet Labs, Inc.
Satellite Industry Association
Space Frontier Foundation
Spaceport Strategies, LLC
Spire Global, Inc.
Space Environment Technologies
SpaceX
Students for the Exploration and Development of Space, and
TechFreedom
Without objection, the letters we have received will be
included in the record. I want to thank these groups for their
support of the bill.
Space Subcommittee Chairman Brian Babin and Representative
Jim Bridenstine are co-authors and original co-sponsors of the
bill. They both have worked diligently for several years to
advance this legislation.
I'm glad to have Representative Perlmutter and former
Science Committee member Derek Kilmer as original co-sponsors
as well. It speaks to the hard work of all Committee members
and staff in developing this common sense, bipartisan,
regulatory reform bill.
This transformative groundbreaking legislation declares in
word and intent that America is ``open for business'' in space.
I strongly recommend this bill and urge my colleagues to
support it.
Chairman Smith. That concludes my opening statement, and
Ranking Member, the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, the
Ranking Member, is recognized for hers.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank you
for holding today's markup of H.R. 2809, the American Space
Commerce Free Enterprise Act of 2017. I want to also thank you
for delaying it so that we could attempt to work together. That
is much appreciated.
The issues that this bill attempts to address are important
and need to be addressed. Unfortunately, I think the solutions
provided in H.R. 2809 may cause more problems than they solve.
For this reason, I cannot support the bill in its current form.
I think there is a bipartisan agreement concerning the problems
being addressed at today's markup.
There is a regulatory gap in our current structure of
oversight over commercial space activities. We currently
regulate launch and reentry activities, Earth imaging, and
space communications, but other in-orbit or deep-space
operations are essentially unregulated. I think it is widely
acknowledged that these orbital activities need to be more
closely overseen, especially as the problems of space debris
have increased.
The other problem addressed by H.R. 2809 is in the area of
commercial remote sensing. Again, I think there is bipartisan
agreement that this subject needs to be addressed. U.S.
companies are increasingly at a competitive disadvantage versus
their foreign competitors due to the current regulatory and
oversight situation in the United States in the area of
commercial remote sensing. Clearly, something needs to be done
here to align our oversight system to the realities of the
global marketplace.
Unfortunately, the approach the Majority has taken with
H.R. 2809 may cause more problems than it fixes. For instance,
instead of housing space regulatory authority at an agency with
existing expertise and existing space regulatory activities,
H.R. 2809 would essentially create an entirely new bureaucracy
to implement this law. The office that this bill assigns these
responsibilities to has a total of three full-time employees
right now. This makes no sense to me, and it makes no sense to
many in the stakeholder community.
We have an existing space regulatory body, created by the
Science Committee, and housed at the Department of
Transportation, which has the base of expertise to implement
this law. I think it makes much more sense to place these new
responsibilities within this existing office rather than to
create an entirely new and different regulatory body in a
different Department of the government.
Likewise, with regard to commercial remote sensing, this
bill takes an unnecessarily expansive approach to addressing
the problem. The underlying bill would make the Secretary of
Commerce the judge, jury, and executioner with regard to
national security issues raised in the commercial remote
sensing regulatory process. This is a dramatic turn away from
the interagency process that has historically been used to
address national security issues in space. Again, instead of
improving the process for commercial remote sensing, this bill
blows up that process. I think a more incremental improvement
to the process would be more constructive. And I think we
should acknowledge the reality that the approach this bill
takes with regard to national security issues and international
obligations will likely doom any chance for enactment of this
legislation.
There are numerous other issues, both large and small, with
this legislation. Many of these issues have been pointed out by
the stakeholder community both in government and industry. I
think if those stakeholders had been consulted prior to
drafting this legislation, rather than as an afterthought, we
could have avoided these problems entirely.
We have good staff here on the Committee. For instance, my
aerospace staff have over 100 years of combined experience
working on these issues in government, industry, and NGO's.
Nonetheless, even with their wealth of experience and
expertise, I wouldn't want them to craft complex legislation
without first consulting the full cross-section of the affected
stakeholder community. The result of not consulting with that
stakeholder community from the outset is that we have a bill
before us today that is needlessly complex, unsupported by
broad swaths of the government and industry, and very unlikely
to be enacted into law.
Mr. Chairman, I applaud your efforts to address two very
real problems with our commercial space regulatory regime.
However, I think we'd be better served by hitting the reset
button on this legislation.
I thank you, and I yield back.
Prepared Statement of Ms. Johnson
Thank you Chairman Smith. And I want to thank you for
holding today's markup of H.R. 2809, the American Space
Commerce Free Enterprise Act of 2017. The issues that this bill
attempts to address are important and need to be addressed.
Unfortunately, I think the solutions provided in H.R. 2809 may
cause more problems than they solve. For this reason, I cannot
support the bill in its current form.
I think there is a bipartisan agreement concerning the
problems being addressed at today's markup. There is a
regulatory gap in our current structure of oversight over
commercial space activities.
We currently regulate launch and reentry activities, earth
imaging, and space communications, but other in-orbit or deep
space operations are essentially unregulated. I think it is
widely acknowledged that these orbital activities need to be
more closely overseen, especially as the problems of space
debris have increased.
The other problem addressed by H.R. 2809 is in the area of
commercial remote sensing. Again, I think there is bipartisan
agreement that this subject needs to be addressed. U.S.
companies are increasingly at a competitive disadvantage versus
their foreign competitors due to the current regulatory and
oversight situation in the United States in the area of
commercial remote sensing. Clearly, something needs to be done
here to align our oversight system to the realities of the
global marketplace.
Unfortunately, the approach the Majority has taken with
H.R. 2809 may cause more problems than it will fix.
For instance, instead of housing space regulatory authority
at an agency with existing expertise and existing space
regulatory activities, H.R. 2809 would essentially create an
entirely new bureaucracy to implement this law. The office that
this bill assigns these responsibilities to has a total of
three full time employees right now. This makes no sense to me,
and it makes no sense to many in the stakeholder community. We
have an existing space regulatory body, created by the Science
Committee, and housed at the Department of Transportation,
which has the base of expertise to implement this law. I think
it makes much more sense to place these new responsibilities
within this existing office rather than to create an entirely
new and different regulatory body in a different Department of
the government.
Likewise, with regard to commercial remote sensing, this
bill takes an unnecessarily expansive approach to addressing
the problem.
The underlying bill would make the Secretary of Commerce
the judge, jury, and executioner with regard to national
security issues raised in the commercial remote sensing
regulatory process. This is a dramatic turn away from the
interagency process that has historically been used to address
national security issues in space. Again, instead of improving
the process for commercial remote sensing, this bill blows up
that process. I think a more incremental improvement to the
process would be more constructive. And I think we should
acknowledge the reality that the approach this bill takes with
regard to national security issues and international
obligations will likely doom any chance for enactment of this
legislation.
There are numerous other issues, both large and small, with
this legislation. Many of these issues have been pointed out by
the stakeholder community both in government and industry. I
think if those stakeholders had been consulted prior to
drafting this legislation, rather than as an afterthought, we
could have avoided these problems entirely. We have good staff
here on the Committee. For instance, my aerospace staff have
over 100 years of combined experience working on these issues
in government, industry, and NGOs. Nonetheless, even with their
wealth of experience and expertise, I wouldn't want them to
craft complex legislation without first consulting the full
cross-section of the affected stakeholder community. The result
of not consulting with that stakeholder community from the
outset is that we have a bill before us today that is
needlessly complex, unsupported by broad swaths of government
and industry, and very unlikely to be enacted into law.
Mr. Chairman, I applaud your efforts to address two very
real problems with our commercial space regulatory regime.
However, I think we would be better served by hitting the
reset button on this legislation.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
The Chairman of the Space Subcommittee, the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Babin, is recognized for an opening statement.
Mr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. Good
morning--or good afternoon.
I want to say that I strongly support H.R. 2809, the
American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act of 2017. I am
grateful to have worked with Chairman Smith and Representative
Bridenstine in the development of this bill. I am also very
glad that this is a bipartisan bill, with the support of
Representatives Perlmutter and Kilmer.
The American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act is a
commonsense bipartisan bill that streamlines regulatory
processes, limits burdensome government intrusion, promotes
American innovation and investment, protects national security,
and satisfies our international obligations.
One of the fundamental drivers for this legislation has
been that innovative American companies are pushing the
boundaries. When the Senate ratified the Outer Space Treaty 50
years ago, free enterprise in outer space was an idea, but not
yet a reality. Today, not only does the U.S. free enterprise
exist in outer space, it is innovating at an unprecedented
pace. From asteroid mining, to private moon missions, to
satellite servicing, to remote sensing constellations, there is
great promise that American enterprise will soon unlock new
wealth and scientific benefits.
But this promise is threatened, threatened by expansive
unchecked regulatory authority, cumbersome non-transparent
regulatory processes, and misperceptions about United States
Outer Space Treaty obligations.
For several years, the Space Subcommittee has heard
concerns from our stakeholders that they need greater
regulatory certainty to attract investment and to succeed.
Stakeholders also reported that while they want to stay in
America, due to regulatory burdens and uncertainty, they might
need to go overseas.
The American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act addresses
these concerns without compromising our cherished principles of
liberty. It provides for presumptions of approval and requires
the government to take affirmative steps before conditioning or
denying proposed space or remote sensing operations. It places
the burden of demonstrating inconsistency with Outer Space
Treaty obligations and national security requirements of the
United States with the government and not with the applicant.
It curtails vague, overreaching regulatory authority and
prevents tolling of statutory adjudication timelines. It
ensures U.S. industry receives a timely and transparent
determination on applications.
The bill recognizes legitimate national security equities
and provides for the condition or denial of authorized space
activities with remote sensing systems that are a significant
threat to U.S. national security in certain circumstances. But
it protects against abuses of interagency discretion by
requiring an explanation and evidence of the threat before
conditions or denial can be made.
In order to ensure the Office of Space Commerce is
empowered to represent the interests of our citizens and the
private sector, the Director of the Office of Space Commerce is
elevated to be the Assistant Secretary for Space Commerce.
The Act also advances important public policy interests.
The bill establishes a mandatory safety consultation between
private and Federal Government operators. The goal of this
consultation is for the affected parties to reach a voluntary
agreement to mitigate safety risks. For parties subject to U.S.
jurisdiction, the Act provides for Federal district court
jurisdiction for any civil action resulting from certified or
permitted space operations.
To protect against foreign harmful interference, the Act
directs the President to protect against acts of foreign
aggression and foreign harmful interference. The Act also
addresses concerns of harmful contamination of the Earth or of
celestial bodies. Pursuant to our international obligations
under the Outer Space Treaty, operations may be conditioned or
denied by the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with
appropriate agencies, such as NASA to address harmful
contamination.
The bill posits longstanding United States policy,
confirmed by both Department of State and NASA, that COSPAR
planetary protection guidelines are not international
obligations of the United States. This was done to allow all
stakeholders, including the scientific community and industry,
to work together as activities expand beyond scientific
exploration and use, to address mutual interests, not by
proscribing COSPAR guidelines as binding international law, but
by allowing the Outer Space Treaty to guide our activities.
I strongly support this bill and urge my colleagues to do
the same, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Prepared Statement of Mr. Babin
Good afternoon. I strongly support H.R. 2809, the American
Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act of 2017.
I am grateful to have worked with Chairman Smith and
Representative Bridenstine in the development of this bill. I
am also very glad that this is a bipartisan bill, with the
support of Representatives Perlmutter and Kilmer.
The American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act is a
common-sense bipartisan bill that streamlines regulatory
processes, limits burdensome government intrusion, promotes
American innovation and investment, protects national security,
and satisfies our international obligations.
One of the fundamental drivers for this legislation has
been that innovative American companies are pushing the
boundaries.
When the Senate ratified the Outer Space Treaty fifty years
ago, free enterprise in outer space was an idea, but not yet a
reality.
Today, not only does U.S. free enterprise exist in outer
space, it is innovating at an unprecedented pace. From asteroid
mining, to private moon missions, to satellite servicing, to
remote sensing constellations, there is great promise that
American enterprise will soon unlock new wealth and scientific
benefits.
But this promise is threatened. Threatened by expansive
unchecked regulatory authority, cumbersome non-transparent
regulatory processes, and misperceptions about United States
Outer Space Treaty obligations.
For several years, the Space Subcommittee has heard
concerns from stakeholders that they need greater regulatory
certainty to attract investment and succeed. Stakeholders also
reported that while they want to stay in America, due to
regulatory burdens and uncertainty, they might need to go
overseas.
The American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act addresses
these concerns without compromising our cherished principles of
liberty.
It provides for presumptions of approval and requires the
government to take affirmative steps before conditioning or
denying proposed space or remote sensing operations.
It places the burden of demonstrating inconsistency with
Outer Space Treaty obligations and national security
requirements of the United States with the government, not the
applicant.
It curtails vague, overreaching regulatory authority and
prevents tolling of statutory adjudication timelines. It
ensures U.S. industry receives a timely and transparent
determination on applications.
The bill recognizes legitimate national security equities
and provides for the condition or denial of authorized space
activities with remote sensing systems that are a significant
threat to U.S. national security in certain circumstances. But
it protects against abuses of interagency discretion by
requiring an explanation and evidence of the threat before
conditions or denial can be made.
In order to ensure the Office of Space Commerce is
empowered to represent the interests of our citizens and the
private sector, the Director of the Office is elevated to be
the ``Assistant Secretary for Space Commerce.''
The Act also advances important public policy interests.
The bill establishes a mandatory safety consultation
between private and federal government operators. The goal of
this consultation is for the affected parties to reach a
voluntary agreement to mitigate safety risks.
For parties subject to U.S. jurisdiction, the Act provides
for Federal district court jurisdiction for any civil action
resulting from certified or permitted space operations. To
protect against foreign harmful interference, the Act directs
the President to protect against acts of foreign aggression and
foreign harmful interference.
The act also addresses concerns of harmful contamination of
the Earth or celestial bodies. Pursuant to our international
obligations under the Outer Space Treaty, operations may be
conditioned or denied by the Secretary of Commerce, in
consultation with appropriate agencies, such as NASA to address
harmful contamination. The bill posits long-standing United
States policy, confirmed by both Department of State and NASA,
that COSPAR planetary protection guidelines are not
international obligations of the United States. This was done
to allow all stakeholders, including the scientific community
and industry, to work together as activities expand beyond
scientific exploration and use, to address mutual interests.
Not by proscribing COSPAR guidelines as binding international
law, but by allowing the Outer Space Treaty to guide our
activities.
I strongly support this bill and urge my colleagues to do
the same.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Babin.
And the gentleman from Oklahoma, one of the principal
authors of the bill, is recognized for his opening statement.
Mr. Bridenstine.
Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
For several years now, there has been uncertainty around
which government agency has the responsibility to approve
nontraditional space activities while ensuring conformity with
the Outer Space Treaty. This uncertainty has hurt capital
formation and innovation. It also sends American companies
scrambling overseas to countries such as Luxembourg and the
United Arab Emirates. This is the exact opposite environment we
need in this country.
I have made solving this issue one of my top priorities in
Congress, and as the Chairman noted, Bigelow Aerospace and Moon
Express have been blazing a trail here. Last year, I proposed
legislation to provide for an Enhanced Payload Review. The
American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act takes from that and
builds upon much of the consensus we gained around the policies
in that draft legislation. The American Space Commerce Free
Enterprise Act provides certainty to industry by granting the
ability to approve commercial space activities to a single
authority. I want to be clear: We need a single authority. In
this case, we've determined that the best case would be the
Secretary of Commerce. The Office of Space Commerce will be
elevated to a more prominent position within the Commerce
Department and will perform a simple review of proposed
operations to check that they are not violating the United
States' obligations under the Outer Space Treaty. This gives
the executive branch the tool it claims that it needs while
instituting a clear, known, transparent, and timely process for
American industry to prosper.
There is discretion built into this bill for the Secretary
to condition or even deny a certification. I think this is an
important piece to have from a policy standpoint. However, the
onus here to prove there is a problem is now going to be on the
government. The message Congress is trying to send is, as the
Chairman said, that America is open for business, especially in
space.
However, Congress also recognizes that there are other
policies and interests of the United States that are affected
by private sector space activities, one of them being national
security. As a former Naval aviator, a current Oklahoma Air
National Guardsman, and a Member of the House Armed Services
Committee, there is nothing more important to me than the
national security of the United States. I want to be clear:
This bill actually improves the national security of the United
States.
This is why the American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act
rolls in remote sensing reform. National security interests for
the foreseeable future will require remote sensing systems,
many of which are now going to be provided commercially. By
requiring a national security risk assessment during the remote
sensing system permitting process, we are ensuring national
security concerns are met. This has also provided an
opportunity in this bill for us to reform the broken system of
remote sensing licensing that is overly restrictive, thwarts
industry, and hands an advantage to foreign competitors.
As the author of Title II of the Commercial Space Launch
Competitiveness Act of 2015, along with my good friend from
Colorado, Ed Perlmutter, I have been committed to fixing this
issue for many years. The American Space Commerce Free
Enterprise Act improves the remote sensing permitting process
by creating a single decision point, increasing transparency of
the process, avoiding unnecessary reviews of technologies
available on the market or that have already been approved, and
preventing the interagency process from indefinitely delaying
decisionmaking. These changes will allow our remote sensing
industry to once again be the world leader.
The bill also goes farther than current law to provide for
the physical safety of U.S. Government assets in orbit. After
operations are certificated, the government can do an
assessment for physical safety issues, and a consultation forum
will be held to come to a solution that can prevent any
disastrous collisions and protect the safety of government and
private assets.
This bill will engender a growth in commercial space
activity that we have not yet seen in the United States of
America. This is a good growth of space activity. But this
growth will continue to put further stress on the agency
responsible for approving launches: The FAA Office of
Commercial Space Transportation. Congress needs to be mindful
that we must be proactive on that office as well, and I have an
amendment to begin addressing this issue later here in the
markup.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very strong and a very bipartisan
bill. This is a good place to begin the legislative process as
we work with the rest of our House colleagues, the Senate, and
the Administration to eventually get a solution put into law.
I want to thank you, Chairman Smith, for all of your hard
work on this as well as Chairman Babin. We're sending a clear
message here today. I'm proud to support the bill, and I look
forward to favorably reporting it out of the Science Committee.
I'd also like to thank a couple of the staffers,
Christopher Ingraham in my office has been working overtime on
this, and Mr. Chairman, your staffers, Chris Wydler, Tom
Hammond, Mike Mineiro, and Shana Dale have been on the phone
day in and day out for many, many months now, and thank you for
allowing them to work so hard on this bill.
Mr. Chairman, thank you. I yield back.
Prepared Statement of Mr. Bridenstine
Mr. Chairman, I am glad we are here today marking up the
American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act. For several years
now, there has been uncertainty around what government agency
has the responsibility to approve nontraditional space
activities while ensuring conformity with the Outer Space
Treaty. This uncertainty has hurt capital formation and
innovation. It also sends American companies scrambling
overseas to countries such as Luxembourg or the UAE. This is
the exact opposite environment we need in this country.
I have made solving this issue one of my top priorities in
Congress. Last year, I proposed legislation to provide for an
Enhanced Payload Review. The American Space Commerce Free
Enterprise Act takes from that and builds upon much of the
consensus we gained around the policies in that draft
legislation.
The American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act provides
certainty to industry by granting the ability to approve
commercial space activities to a single authority, in this case
the Secretary of Commerce. The Office of Space Commerce will be
elevated to a more prominent position within the Commerce
Department and will perform a simple review of proposed
operations to check that they are not violating the United
States' obligations under the Outer Space Treaty. This gives
the executive branch the tool it claims needs while instituting
a clear, known, transparent, and timely process for American
industry to prosper.
There is discretion built into this bill for the Secretary
to condition or deny a certification. I think this is important
to have from a policy standpoint, however, the onus to prove
there is a problem is now on the government. The message
Congress is trying to send is: America is open for business in
space.
However, Congress also recognizes that there are other
policies and interests of the United States that are affected
by private sector space activities, one of them being national
security. As a former Naval aviator, current Oklahoma Air
National Guardsman, and member of the House Armed Services
Committee, there is nothing more important to me than the
national security of the United States. This bill improves
national security.
This is why the American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act
rolls in remote sensing reform. National security interests -
for the foreseeable future - will be implicated by remote
sensing systems, both of the Earth and objects in orbit. By
requiring a national security risk assessment during the remote
sensing system permitting process, we are ensuring national
security concerns are met.
This has also provided an opportunity in this bill for us
to majorly reform the broken system of remote sensing licensing
that is overly restrictive, thwarts industry, and hands an
advantage to foreign competitors. As the author of Title II of
the Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act of 2015, along
with my good friend from Colorado Ed Perlmutter, I have been
committed to fixing this issue.
The American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act improves
the remote sensing permitting process by creating a single
decision point, increasing transparency of the process,
avoiding unnecessary reviews of technologies available on the
market or that have already been approved, and preventing the
interagency process from indefinitely delaying decision making.
These changes will allow our remote sensing industry to
once again be the world leader.
The bill also goes farther than current law to provide for
the physical safety of United States government assets on
orbit. After operations are certificated, the government can do
an assessment for physical safety issues, and a consultation
forum will be held to come to a solution that can prevent any
disastrous collisions and protect the safety of government and
private assets.
This bill will engender a growth in commercial space
activity that we have not yet seen. A good growth. But this
growth will continue to put further stress on the agency
responsible for approving launches - FAA/AST. Congress needs to
be mindful that we must be proactive on that office as well,
and I will have an amendment to begin addressing this issue
later in the mark up.
All in all Mr. Chairman, this is a very strong and
bipartisan bill, which was very important for me that we make
sure this bill, and space, remained bipartisan. This is a good
place to begin the legislative process as we work with the rest
of our House colleagues, the Senate, and the Administration to
eventually get a solution put into law.
I want to thank Chairman Smith and Chairman Babin for
working with me on this, we have been working hand in hand to
craft the American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act, and we
are sending a clear message that American innovation will lead
the world. I am proud to support the bill and look forward to
favorably reporting it out of the Science Committee.
I'd like to thank the staff for their work on this issue:
My staffer Christopher Ingraham, and Science Committee staffers
Chris Wydler, Tom Hammond, Mike Mineiro, and Shana Dale.
I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Bridenstine. I appreciate
the compliments directed toward staff and the legislation as
well.
We will now proceed with amendments in the order listed on
the roster. The first amendment on the roster is a Manger's
Amendment, and the clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2809 offered by Mr. Smith of
Texas, amendment #012.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment will be
considered as read, and I'll recognize myself in support of the
Manager's Amendment.
The Manager's Amendment makes technical corrections and
minor changes to the bill. Among these, it extends the time the
Secretary of Commerce has to adjudicate certificate and permit
applications from 60 to 90 days. The amendment also says that
the Secretary of Commerce shall consult as the Secretary
considers necessary with the heads of other relevant agencies.
This change was made to ensure that departments and agencies
such as NASA, the Department of Defense or the Department of
State have a way to inform Secretary of Commerce determinations
on proposed space activities.
However, further modifying the consultation authorities
under the bill beyond ``shall consult as the Secretary
considers necessary'' puts at risk the very purpose of the
bill. Additional changes would undermine the ability of the
Secretary to provide a fair and equitable adjudication of
applications and open up the certification and permitting
processes to excessive interagency control.
Today, remote sensing systems are subject to a regulatory
regime where at least three different departments and agencies
have the authority to condition or deny applications. As a
result, licensing actions occur months and even years over the
120-day determination timeline required by law. Companies are
applying and waiting without any understanding as to why NOAA
takes so long to get back. Stakeholders report significant
uncertainty with licensing actions including modifications to
operational license conditions without notice or due process.
American remote sensing startups want to stay in the United
States but most plan for overseas operations due to the
uncertainty in our current regulatory approval process.
Experience also has taught us that while the Department of
Transportation retains exclusive authority to make
determinations for international obligations for laundry and
reentry activities, inflexible consultation provisions have in
practice become de facto concurrence authorities for other
departments and agencies. This is not to say that the intent of
the bill is to undermine the ability of the executive branch to
appropriately inform the Secretary of Commerce about remote
sensing applications. On the contrary, the proposed amendment
will clearly provide such a process.
We must also recognize that any major disagreement between
the Secretary of Commerce and other departments or agencies
regarding a proposed operation will be elevated to the White
House for adjudication. In such interagency environments, if we
move the needle too far in favor of other agencies, the
Secretary of Commerce will not be able to represent the
interests of the applicant and the national interest of free
enterprise.
For all these reasons, I support this amendment, and not
only ask my colleagues to do the same, but I want to recognize
the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Perlmutter, and give him
credit for these changes as well.
Let's see. If there any further discussion on the
amendment? The gentleman from Colorado is recognized.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you, and I move to strike the last
word.
Chairman Smith. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Perlmutter. I'm here today as a supporter and cosponsor
of H.R. 2809. The United States currently has the best
aerospace industry in the world. In order to stay No. 1, we
need to provide it certainty so that the industry can attract
investment and continue innovating to push our country forward.
We also want to help set the standard for how to regulate
space activities so there is a level playing field for our
American industry. That is why we need a certification process
as provided in the bill to ensure compliance with the Outer
Space Treaty. I understand there's still some discussion
amongst industry and from involved agencies about where this
authority should be placed, either within the Office of Space
Commerce as under the bill or under the Office of Space
Transportation at the FAA, or maybe someplace else. I hope this
discussion continues and we reach a consecutive as we continue
through the legislative process.
I hope our Committee continues to also have the discussion
on space traffic management and how to properly protect both
U.S. Government and other U.S. commercial spacecraft to avoid
conflicts and costly problems for everyone.
The second part of the bill, and the Chairman was just
referring to it, makes important reforms for the remote sensing
industry. As many of may you know, a major remote sensing
company named Digital Globe is headquartered in my district in
Westminster, Colorado. I've heard the stories about how long
they've waited for a license determination under NOAA: Over 3
years and counting in one space. This is well past the 120-day
deadline currently required in statute because there is no
mechanism to enforce any timeline. This is why I believe the
reforms in section 4 of the bill are overdue and are necessary.
Those companies in the business, in the remote sensing
business, need certainty so they can make sound plans and
attract investors and customers. All of these regulatory delays
mean lost revenue and significant expenses fighting for
approval. Section 4 of the bill fixes that.
I'd like to take a moment and thank Congressmen Smith,
Babin and Bridenstine for working with me on this bill. I
believe they've made improvements to the text of the bill
including specific consultation language, as the Chairman just
discussed, which requires consultation with other Federal
agencies, ensuring proper determinations regarding the Outer
Space Treaty, national security, and authorizing funding for
the Office of Space Commerce.
I'm grateful the sponsors included two provisions I asked
for in the Manager's Amendment. You're extending the deadlines
in the bill from 60 days to ensure the Office of Space Commerce
has the time needed to get its decisions right. Additionally,
the amendment strengthens the consultation language to require
the Secretary of Commerce to consult with other relevant
Federal agencies as he deems necessary when making the
determinations.
For these reasons, I support the bill and I look forward to
continuing to improve it as it goes through the process, and I
yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Perlmutter, and the
gentleman from Texas, the Chairman of the Subcommittee, is
recognized for a statement as well.
Mr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the
last word.
Chairman Smith. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Babin. I wish as well to speak in favor of the
amendment. One of the changes made by this amendment is
extending the time that the Secretary of Commerce has to
adjudicate certificate and permit applications from 60 to 90
days. This change is being made after discussions with
stakeholders and other Members, specifically, the minority. I
believe this is a reasonable accommodation that would grant the
Secretary of Commerce time necessary to properly adjudicate
applications without overly burdening the applicant.
However, I caution extending this timeline beyond 90 days.
The Secretary and the interagency consultation process must be
held accountable. Without a firm deadline, experience has shown
that the interagency process can lead to long delays in
violation of the law. Today, under existing law, remote sensing
licenses are required to be adjudicated within 120 days.
Reality is that applications have in some cases, as Mr.
Perlmutter mentioned, taken years in clear violation of the
law. We cannot repeat this mistake.
I also completely agree with the points that Chairman Smith
made regarding the consultation language in this amendment, and
while a change in the consultation from ``may'' to ``shall'' is
a reasonable change to address stakeholder concerns further
modifying the consultation authorities under the bill beyond
``shall consult as the Secretary considers necessary'' puts at
risk the very purpose of this bill.
I support this amendment and I urge my colleagues to do the
same, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Babin.
Is there any further discussion on the bill?
If not, the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Bridenstine is
recognized.
Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll just be
quick.
I wanted to thank my friend from Colorado, Ed Perlmutter,
because he provided a lot of great input, same with my friend
from California, Mr. Bera, a lot of great input. We have made
many efforts to accommodate those changes, and in fact,
appreciate Ed for not only--Mr. Perlmutter is my enemy. How
about that? Does that help you in your primary? No, I
appreciate his good-faith effort in trying to make this a
better bill, and I look forward to working with him in the
future to make it even better.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Bridenstine.
If there is no further discussion on the amendment, all in
favor of the Manager's Amendment say aye.
All opposed, no.
The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
The next amendment on the roster is the amendment in the
nature of a substitute offered by the Ranking Member, the
gentlewoman from Texas, and she is recognized for that purpose.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment
at the desk.
Chairman Smith. And the clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R.
2809, offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, amendment
#002.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, and the Ranking Member is recognized to
explain her amendment.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you.
When I first learned that the Chairman wanted to pursue
commercial space legislation this spring, I let him know that I
wanted to work with him to see whether we could develop a
bipartisan piece of legislation that all Members could support.
Majority and minority staff tried hard to achieve such a result
but ultimately too many significant issues still remain to be
resolved with this bill when today's markup was noticed.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, many concerns were
raised about the bill's provisions by NASA, national security
agencies, the State Department, and industry stakeholders,
among others. In fact, when NASA reviewed the latest version of
the bill we're marking up today, the agency identified even
more concerns than were included in its original set of
comments. In short, this bill is not a bill that can be fixed
with a few amendments at today's market.
That said, the issues that the bill attempts to address are
important ones. I feel an obligation to propose an alternative
that can address these issues, not just oppose the current
bill, and this is what my amendment is intended to do.
Fortunately, we already have a roadmap for much of this work.
Congress asked for and received guidance from the
Administration last year regarding certification of innovative
new space activities. The legislative proposal represented a
consensus of all the agencies that will need to deal with these
space systems and ensure they meet our national security and
international obligations. Section 3 of my amendment
essentially codifies that interagency consensus on mission
certification. Among the key features of that consensus
approach is a decision to not reinvent the wheel but instead to
leverage the competencies that have been built up in FAA's
Office of Commercial Space Transportation and utilize existing
robust interagency review process. One of the strengths of that
interagency process is that it can help provide companies and
investors the assurance that an agency will not try to block
their proposed activities at the last minute simply because the
agency hadn't had an opportunity to review the proposal. As
mentioned in my opening statement, that needn't require
creating yet another Federal bureaucracy with all of the
resulting costs and delays that will accompany its creation.
In essence, the amendment takes a light-touch approach to
regulating the emerging non-traditional commercial space
systems. Rather than requiring page after page of convoluted
legislative text, the amendment builds on the highly successful
FAA space launch licensing process and provides a clean,
straightforward path of certification of these innovative new
space systems.
In addition, section 3 of the amendment is consistent with
the consensus approach endorsed by the space professionals of
the agencies that will have to deal with these new systems in
marked contrast to the bill being marked up today.
With respect to commercial remote sensing licensing, my
amendment again attempts to build on the existing process
rather than blowing it up and starting over. The amendment
proposes a number of reforms that have been urged by the remote
sensing industry including shortened timetables for application
reviews certainty that granting a license means that national
security and international obligation concerns have been
addressed and elevation of the remote sensing licensing
function at the Commerce Department.
Equally importantly, it authorizes a significant increase
in funding for the office that will be handling these remote
sensing licensing applications. It is hard to criticize
Commerce for the slowness of its licensing operation when
Congress has too often failed to provide the resources and
staffing the licensing office needs.
In conclusion, the amendment I'm offering today addresses
head on the two issues that we are considering today and takes
on an approach that is limited, allows the oversight of these
new systems to evolve as we can more experience, and minimizes
the cost and delays that will inevitably be incurred under the
approach taken in this base bill.
However, I really can count. I learned to count over 75
years ago in Waco, Texas, and I realize that this amendment has
very little chance of being adopted. So as I mentioned earlier,
I don't think the issues being addressed today are inherently
partisan and it is my hope that we can continue to work
together and find common ground to support all aspects of the
commercial space industry. In that light, I'm going to withdraw
my amendment and hope that we can continue to work together to
reach a consensus on this bill.
So I ask consent to withdraw the amendment, and I yield
back.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment is
withdrawn, and I thank the gentlewoman for her comments.
I'm going to recognize myself in opposition to the
amendment. Not to go into any great detail as I would have had
it not been withdrawn, but I do want Members of the Committee
on both sides of the aisle to recognize a little bit about the
efforts we have made to try to make this a bipartisan piece of
legislation.
This Committee has worked diligently to ensure that you
international obligations and national security interests are
met in the least burdensome manner possible. On September 7,
2016, the Committee held a hearing titled ``Commercial Remote
Sensing: Facilitating Ownership and Leadership.'' On March 8th,
2017, the Committee held a hearing on regulating space,
innovation, liberty and international obligations. We shared a
discussion draft of the bill before us today with the Minority,
stakeholders, and agencies more than a month ago. We
participated in dozens of bipartisan meetings with stakeholders
and the Minority. We incorporated dozens of edits that were
responsive to all parties. We circulated an updated version of
the draft bill last week days in advance of what is required by
Committee rules. The Minority requested 11 specific changes to
the bill. In the interests of good faith, we accommodated as
many as we could, a great majority, in fact.
After making all those accommodations to the Minority, I
was more than disappointed to see this amendment in the nature
of a substitute, and while I won't go into all my objections to
the amendment, I'll simply say in general the Ranking Member's
amendment would strangle an industry in its early stages with
burdensome regulations, force companies to relocate overseas,
compromise national security, stifle innovation and economic
competitiveness, and relegate the United States to a second-
rate space-faring Nation.
I'll be happy to share my additional objections with
Members, but in the interest of time, I'll simply say that I am
a little bit concerned about the ability of this Committee to
process bipartisan bills if we can't agree on this piece of
legislation that is so widely supported by so many interest
groups, and after all the efforts we made, all the reassurances
that we have received, I just hope that all individuals of the
Committee will make up their own minds and reach their own
conclusions as to whether they think this is a good piece of
legislation.
That concludes my remarks, and we will now go to the third
amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr.
Bridenstine.
Mr. Bridenstine. Stand by 1 second, Chairman. OK, Mr.
Chairman. This bill is intended to engender growth in
commercial space activity that will be unlike any we have seen.
Chairman Smith. The clerk will report the amendment.
Mr. Bridenstine. Oh, yes, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2809 offered by Mr.
Bridenstine of Oklahoma, amendment #008.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, and the gentleman is recognized to explain
his amendment.
Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This bill is intended to engender growth in commercial
space activity that will be unlike any we have seen. Granting
maximum certainty with minimal regulatory burden to non-
traditional activities as well as improving the process for
more traditional activity will encourage American entrepreneurs
and innovators to take risks, to raise capital, and to start
new ventures. These endeavors will need to get to space, and
they will do hopefully on the top of American rockets, but in
order to do that, the office that regulates and promotes the
commercial launch industry must be well positioned to carry out
this job efficiently and effectively.
I have long been a vocal proponent of FAA's Office of
Commercial Space Transportation, or sometimes called FAA AST. I
have led the fight to provide it with increased resources and
update the regulations under its purview. For this office to
truly be effective, however, it cannot be buried within the FAA
where it must compete for resources and it has to compete for
focus. It must be moved back to the secretariat level within
the Department of Transportation.
My amendment is very simple. It calls for a GAO study to
assess the pros and cons of moving FAA AST out of the FAA and
to make it an Assistant Secretary of Transportation position
and the issues that would need to be addressed in such a move.
While I am a firm believer that this move must be done, I think
that we have to have full situational awareness so that we do
it right and that our colleagues are comfortable with doing so.
Just a few seconds ago, Mr. Webster from Florida asked me
how--if we were to privatize FAA how my amendment would be
affected, and the question is a good one, and the answer is, I
don't know. I want to make it very clear what this amendment is
and what it does. We're just asking the GAO to do a study. If
we were to take FAA AST, move it out of FAA move it under the
Secretary of Transportation, and take the current Associate
Administrator of the FAA into an Assistant Secretary of
Transportation, that's what this study getting at. What does it
require, what do we need to do to make that happen, and what
will the impact be? And of course, the privatization of the FAA
is a question that we don't if that's going to happen yet, No.
1, and No. 2, if it does happen, what will happen to AST if
that does happen. So Mr. Webster had a great question.
Hopefully this study will get us more smart on what that does.
So Mr. Chairman, if we don't address the relationship
between what we are trying to do in the American Space Commerce
Free Enterprise Act and the FAA AST, I fear we might be setting
FAA AST up for failure. This amendment is a good first step in
a process to support AST. Let me clear, when I say AST, I'm
talking about the Office of Commercial Space Transportation. We
want to support that office and move it back up to the
Department of Transportation. All this amendment does is, it
creates a study to see how we would do that, and if we did,
what the implications would be.
With that, I urge its adoption, and I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Would the gentleman yield to me before he
yields back?
Mr. Bridenstine. Yes, sir.
Chairman Smith. And that is simply so that I can say I want
to thank you for offering the amendment, and I recommend it to
my colleagues. It adds to the piece of legislation.
Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Are there other Members who want to be
recognized? The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson.
Ms. Johnson. I just want to support that. I think we need
that information, and I appreciate you bringing it forward.
Chairman Smith.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
All in favor, say aye.
All opposed, say nay.
The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
We will now go to our last amendment, and it's going to be
an amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado, Mr.
Perlmutter. I can see his hand, and he is recognized. The
gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes, and the clerk will
report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2809 offered by Mr. Perlmutter
of Colorado, amendment #010.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment will be
considered as read, and the gentleman is recognized to explain
his amendment.
Mr. Perlmutter. Sure. Under the bill, there is a Committee,
Private Space Activity Advisory Committee, that's constituted
and it has among its duties a variety of things. What this
amendment does at page 27, line 12, it adds the Committee is
supposed to also consider our aerospace industry's access to
adequate, predictable and reliable ratio frequency spectrum, so
to just make sure that spectrum is available to the aerospace
industry, and that's all the amendment does, and with that, I
yield back.
Chairman Smith. Has the gentleman yielded back?
Mr. Perlmutter. I did.
Chairman Smith. OK. Thank you for the amendment. I'll
recognize myself simply to say I support the amendment and urge
my colleagues to support it as well.
Is there any further discussion on the amendment?
If not, all in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
We're going to go to final passage. Before he leaves the
room, at the risk of hurting him back home, I do want to thank
Perlmutter for substantially improving the legislation, and--
but honestly and seriously, this is a good bipartisan piece of
legislation, and we've had others dealing with space. It is a
wonderful subject for us to be excited about and that will
inspire others as well.
If there are no further amendments, a reporting quorum
being present, I move that the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology report H.R. 2809 to the House as amended with the
recommendation that the bill be approved.
The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 2809 to the
House as amended.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, nay.
The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered reported
favorably.
Without objection, the Motion to Reconsider is laid upon
the table. H.R. 2809 is ordered reported to the House.
I ask unanimous consent that staff authorized to make any
necessary technical and conforming changes. Without objection,
so ordered.
Thank you all. This was great attendance today. I
appreciate everybody's input, and the gentlewoman from Texas,
the Ranking Member, is recognized.
Ms. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, this is not intended to be a
goodbye to Mr. Perlmutter.
Chairman Smith. We stand adjourned. Thank you, all.
[Whereupon, at 2:38 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
H.R. 2809, Amendment Roster
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE
MARKUP ON H.R. 2763,
SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION
RESEARCH AND SMALL BUSINESS
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2017
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 2017
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in
room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar
Smith [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Chairman Smith. The Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recesses of the Committee at any time. Pursuant to Committee
Rule II(e) and House Rule XI(2)(h)(4), the Chair announces that
he may postpone roll call votes.
Today, we meet to consider H.R. 2763, the Small Business
Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer
Improvements Act of 2017.
Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 2763, and the clerk
will report the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 2763, a bill to amend the Small Business
Act, to improve the Small Business Innovation Research program
and Small Business Technology Transfer program, and for other
purposes.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the bill will be
considered as read and open for amendment at any point, and
I'll recognize myself for an opening statement.
First of all, I want to thank the gentleman from
California, Mr. Knight, for introducing this legislation, which
makes key improvements to the SBIR and STTR programs.
The SBIR Program was signed into law by President Reagan in
1982 to help spur innovation and increase small business
participation in Federal research and development activity.
Since its inception, this competitive grant program has funded
more than 100,000 projects across America and has helped spawn
familiar companies such as Qualcomm, Sonicare, and Symantec.
SBIR and STTR award winners also have created innovations
critical to our national science and security efforts, such as
parts for the Mars Rover for NASA and a unique cockpit airbag
system to protect Army helicopter pilots.
Today 11 Federal agencies provide funding to small
businesses through SBIR, and five agencies provide funding
through STTR, a total of nearly $3 billion this fiscal year.
That's over 66 times greater than the $45 million spent under
the original program in 1983.
Grant recipients have contributed to the country's
scientific and technical knowledge, generating hundreds of
patents and many contributions to applied science and
knowledge. These small businesses have expanded innovation and
helped strengthen our economy by creating jobs, thousands of
good-paying jobs every year.
However, as we heard at a joint hearing conducted with the
Small Business Committee last month, there is still room for
improvement. For example, the General Accountability Office's
recent review of SBIR and STTR raised red flags about irregular
and incomplete reports to Congress by the SBA and participating
agencies.
These are not new problems, and given the exponential
growth in the program, it is long past time for them to be
remedied. These assessment tools are crucial to ensure that
taxpayers get maximum returns on their investment. We also need
to keep in mind that these programs are intended to support
innovators and entrepreneurs engaged in early stage research
and development. We need to update SBIR and STTR in order to
reflect a fast-changing business environment. Deficiencies in
SBIR-STTR efficiency and effectiveness mean lost opportunities
for innovative small enterprises.
The legislation before our Committee addresses both of
these needs, and I congratulate Mr. Knight for developing such
a responsible, forward-looking bill. It is appropriate to note
that Mr. Knight also serves on the Small Business Committee as
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Contracting and Workforce,
which shares jurisdiction over SBIR and STTR. He was a leader
for the timely reauthorization of the SBIR and STTR programs
last year, which assured no interruption in Federal support for
continuing innovation and commercialization from taxpayer-
supported basic research.
Last week, the House Small Business Committee unanimously
approved an amended version of H.R. 2763.
Today, I look forward to considering a handful of good
reform and prioritization amendments, followed by our
Committee's approval, which will move this legislation one step
closer to House floor action and eventual enactment.
Prepared Statement of Chairman Smith
I thank the gentleman from California, Mr. Knight, for
introducing this important legislation that makes key
improvements to the SBIR and STTR programs.
The SBIR Program was signed into law by President Reagan in
1982 to help spur innovation and increase small business
participation in federal research and development activity.
Since its inception, this competitive grant program has
funded more than 100,000 projects across America and has helped
spawn familiar companies such as Qualcomm, Sonicare, and
Symantec.
SBIR and STTR award winners also have created innovations
critical to our national science and security efforts, such as
parts for the Mars Rover for NASA and a unique cockpit airbag
system to protect Army helicopter pilots.
Today 11 federal agencies provide funding to small
businesses through SBIR, and five agencies provide funding
through STTR - a total of nearly $3 billion this fiscal year.
That's over 66 times greater than the $45 million spent under
the original program in 1983.
Grant recipients have contributed to the country's
scientific and technical knowledge, generating hundreds of
patents and many contributions to applied science and
knowledge.
These small businesses have expanded innovation and helped
strengthen our economy by creating thousands of good-paying
jobs each year.
However, as we heard at a joint hearing conducted with the
Small Business Committee last month, there is still room for
improvement.
For example, the General Accountability Office's recent
review of SBIR and STTR raised red flags about irregular and
incomplete reports to Congress by the SBA and participating
agencies.
These are not new problems, and given the exponential
growth in the program, it is long past time for them to be
remedied. These assessment tools are crucial to ensure that
taxpayers get maximum returns on their investment.
We also need to keep in mind that these programs are
intended to support innovators and entrepreneurs engaged in
early-stage research and development.
We need to update SBIR and STTR in order to reflect a fast-
changing business environment. Deficiencies in SBIR-STTR
efficiency and effectiveness mean lost opportunities for
innovative small enterprises.
The legislation before our Committee addresses both of
these needs, and I congratulate Mr. Knight for developing such
a responsible, forward-looking bill.
It is appropriate to note that Mr. Knight also serves on
the Small Business Committee as Chairman of the Subcommittee on
Contracting and Workforce, which shares jurisdiction over SBIR
and STTR.
He was a leader for the timely reauthorization of the SBIR
and STTR programs last year, which assured no interruption in
federal support for continuing innovation and commercialization
from taxpayer-supported basic research.
Last week, the House Small Business Committee unanimously
approved an amended version of HR 2763.
Today, I look forward to considering a handful of good
reform and prioritization amendments, followed by our
Committee's approval, which will move this legislation one-step
closer to House floor action and eventual enactment.
Chairman Smith. I now recognize the gentlewoman from Texas,
Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson, for her opening statement.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Chairman, for holding
this markup of H.R. 2763, the Small Business Innovation
Research and Small Business Technology Transfer Improvement Act
of 2017.
H.R. 2763 was introduced and previously marked up by our
colleagues on the Small Business Committee. This morning,
Members of the Science Committee have an opportunity to debate
and amend this important legislation.
The Small Business Innovation Research program, or SBIR,
was created in Congress--by Congress in 1982. Since then, it
has grown in size from $45 million to over $2.2 billion, and
expanded to include the Small Business Technology Transfer, or
the STTR program.
The mission of the SBIR program is four-fold: To stimulate
technological innovation, to use small businesses to help meet
Federal research and development needs, to increase private
sector commercialization of the results of federally funded
research, and to foster the participation of women-and
minority-owned firms in technological innovation.
I believe the evidence shows SBIR to be an extremely
valuable program that we must continue to support and
strengthen. However, I continue to believe we must consider the
SBIR in the context of our broader Federal R&D investments.
In December 2016, Congress provided certainty for the SBIR
program for the next 5 years by extending its authorization
through Fiscal Year 2022 at the current allocation level. I was
pleased we were able to accomplish that small but important
task.
As grant proposal success rates at NSF and NIH sink to
historical lows for some programs, we should be very wary of
any actions that would further destabilize the basic research
enterprise that serves as the foundation for our Nation's
innovation and economic growth. I would be very happy to see
SBIR and STTR grow in addition to funding for Federal R&D
overall, and I'm eager to work with my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle to make that happen.
I will also note that the SBIR program has been evaluated
in two rounds of reports by the National Academies. Overall,
the Academies have found that agencies are meeting the first
three objectives of the program, but falling short on the
fourth objective of expanding participation of women and
minorities. We must continue to push agencies on this
objective. Our Nation's capacity to innovate will deteriorate
rapidly if we keep excluding a large and growing percentage of
our population from technological innovation and
entrepreneurship.
This morning, Members on both sides are preparing to offer
substantive amendments to the Small Business Committee's
introduced bill. We will then have to reconcile any differences
with the Small Business Committee's amendments.
While there will be policy issues on which we have
disagreements, H.R. 2763 is a good bill, and I'm pleased to be
able to work closely with the Chairman and my other Republican
colleagues to advance it. I believe we can get to an agreement
with the Small Business Committee and bring this bill to the
House floor.
I thank you again, Chairman Smith, for holding this markup
and for making this a bipartisan and transparent process. I
hope we can do more of this in the coming weeks.
Prepared Statement of Ms. Johnson
Thank you Chairman Smith for holding this markup of H.R.
2763, the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business
Technology Transfer Improvements Act of 2017. H.R. 2763 was
introduced and previously marked up by our colleagues on the
Small Business Committee. This morning, Members of the Science
Committee have an opportunity to debate and amend this
important legislation.
The Small Business Innovation Research Program, or SBIR,
was created by Congress in 1982. Since then, it has grown in
size from $45 million to over $2.2 billion, and expanded to
include the Small Business Technology Transfer, or STTR,
Program. The mission of the SBIR program is four-fold: To
stimulate technological innovation, to use small businesses to
help meet federal research and development needs, to increase
private sector commercialization of the results of federally
funded research, and to foster the participation of women and
minority owned firms in technological innovation.
I believe the evidence shows SBIR to be an extremely
valuable program that we must continue to support and
strengthen. However, I continue to believe we must consider
SBIR in the context of our broader Federal R&D investments.
In December 2016, Congress provided certainty for the SBIR
program for the next 5 years by extending its authorization
through Fiscal Year 2022 at the current allocation level. I was
pleased we were able to accomplish that small but important
task. As grant proposal success rates at NSF and NIH sink to
historical lows for some programs, we should be very wary of
any actions that would further destabilize the basic research
enterprise that serves as the foundation for our nation's
innovation and economic growth. I would be very happy to see
SBIR and STTR grow in addition to funding for Federal R&D
overall, and I am eager to work with my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle to make that happen. I will also note that
the SBIR Program has been evaluated in two rounds of reports by
The National Academies. Overall, the Academies have found that
agencies are meeting the first three objectives of the program,
but falling short on the fourth objective of expanding
participation of women and minorities. We must continue to push
agencies on this objective. Our nation's capacity to innovate
will deteriorate rapidly if we keep excluding a large and
growing percentage of our population from technological
innovation and entrepreneurship.
This morning, Members on both sides are preparing to offer
substantive amendments to the Small Business Committee's
introduced bill. We will then have to reconcile any differences
with the Small Business Committee's amendments. While there
will be policy issues on which we have disagreements, H.R. 2763
is a good bill, and I am pleased to be able to work closely
with the Chairman and my other Republican colleagues to advance
it. I believe we can get to an agreement with the Small
Business Committee and bring this bill to the House Floor.
Thank you again, Chairman Smith, for holding this markup
and for making this a bipartisan and transparent process. I
hope we can do more of this in future months.
I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thanks, Ms. Johnson, for that nice opening
statement.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Knight, the author of
the bill, is recognized for an opening statement as well.
Mr. Knight. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
H.R. 2763 is a bipartisan bill that amends the Small
Business Act to improve the Small Business Innovation Research,
or SBIR, and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR)
programs.
Small businesses drive our economy and are key to America's
global leadership in innovation. Small businesses are more
nimble, can respond to market changes more rapidly than bigger
counterparts, and make the United States more agile in the
world economy.
The SBIR and STTR programs have proven to be very
successful at driving small business participation in Federal
R&D activities, and solving government agency problems, from
protecting soldiers in the field to helping eradicate malaria.
Last year the Science Small Business Committees worked with
the House and Senate Armed Services Committees to include a 5-
year extension of the SBIR and STTR programs. This provided
small businesses and the participating agencies alike with the
confidence and security to know that these popular programs
will continue to be there through 2022.
Last month, the Small Business Subcommittee on Contracting
and Workforce that I chair held a joint hearing with the
Science Research and Technology Subcommittee to look at
recommendations for making minor adjustments to improve the
SBIR and STTR. H.R. 2763 takes some of those recommendations
and strengthens the program in five ways.
First, the bill insists on agency accountability, including
several hard reporting deadlines for participating agencies and
for the Small Business Administration (SBA) to provide Congress
with better information and a greater grasp of the programs'
strengths and weaknesses.
Second, the legislation clarifies congressional intent of
the previous reauthorization to ensure that taxpayers reap the
benefits of the SBIR and STTR programs by tying them to long-
term projects at the DOD.
Third, the legislation extends a popular pilot program that
would allow all participating agencies to award a phase II
contract if the agency finds that the small business concern
has already completed work typically done in that phase I.
Fourth, it makes permanent the option for participating
agencies to establish Commercialization Readiness Programs
(CRPs). As a pilot program, CRPs have shown to provide much
needed assistance to small firms nearing the completion of the
process and have helped advance technology to the
commercialization phase.
And last, it extends a provision to allow participating
agencies to utilize 3 percent of their allocation for
administrative functions, increase waste, fraud, and abuse
efforts, and conduct outreach in an effort to bring more
companies into the SBIR and STTR world.
It's important to note that while the SBIR and STTR
programs provide an average of $3 billion in awards to small
firms annually, it does so without direct appropriations. These
programs simply provide that approximately 3.65 percent of
already appropriated extramural R&D dollars be provided for
small businesses through these programs.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on both the
Science Committee and the Small Business Committee to refine
the bill, and move it to the floor for a vote.
I want to thank the Chairman, Small Business Chairman
Chabot, Chairman Smith for his leadership and supporting this
opportunity, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Prepared Statement of Mr. Knight
H.R. 2763 is a bi-partisan bill that amends the Small
Business Act (Act), to improve the Small Business Innovation
Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR)
Programs.
Small Businesses drive our economy and are key to America's
global leadership in innovation. Small Businesses are more
nimble, can respond to market changes more rapidly than their
bigger counterparts, and make the United States more agile in
the world economy.
The SBIR and STTR programs have proven very successful at
driving small business participation in federal R&D activities,
and solving government agency problems - from protecting
soldiers in the field to helping eradicate malaria.
Last year the Science Small Business Committees worked with
the House and Senate Armed Services Committees to include a 5
year extension of the SBIR and STTR programs. This provided
small businesses and the participating agencies alike with the
confidence and security to know that these popular programs
will continue to be there, at least through 2022.
Last month, the Small Business Subcommittee on Contracting
and Workforce that I chair held a joint hearing with the
Science Research and Technology Subcommittee to look at
recommendations for making minor adjustments to improve the
SBIR and STTR programs
H.R. 2763 takes some of those recommendations and
strengthens the program in five ways.
First, the bill insists on agency accountability, including
several hard reporting deadlines for participating agencies and
for the Small Business Administration (SBA) to provide Congress
with better information and a greater grasp of the programs'
strengths and weaknesses.
Second, the legislation clarifies congressional intent of
the previous reauthorization to ensure that taxpayers reap the
benefits of the SBIR and STTR programs by tying them to long-
term projects at the Department of Defense.
Third, the legislation extends a popular pilot program that
would allow all participating agencies to award a Phase II
contract if the agency finds that the small business concern
has already completed work typically done during Phase I.
Fourth, it makes permanent the option for participating
agencies to establish Commercialization Readiness Programs
(CRPs). As a pilot program, CRPs have shown to provide much
needed assistance to small firms nearing the completion of the
process and have helped advance technology to the
commercialization phase.
Fifth, it extends a provision to allow participating
agencies to utilize 3 percent of their allocation for
administrative functions, increase waste, fraud, and abuse
efforts, and conduct outreach in an effort to bring more
companies into the SBIR and STTR world.
It is important to note that while the SBIR and STTR
programs provide an average of $3 billion in awards to small
firms annually, it does so without a direct appropriation.
These programs simply provide that approximately 3.65 percent
of already appropriated extramural R&D dollars be reserved for
small businesses through these programs.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on both the
Science Committee and the Small Business Committee to refine
the bill, and move it to the floor for a vote.
Thank you Mr. Chairman for your support and this
opportunity, and I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Knight.
We will now proceed with amendments in the order listed on
the roster. The first amendment is a Manager's Amendment, and
the clerk will report it.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2763 offered by Mr. Smith of
Texas.
Chairman Smith. The amendment is considered as read, and
I'll recognize myself to explain the amendment.
This amendment includes several amendments that the Small
Business Committee unanimously approved during their markup of
H.R. 2763 last week. The amendment includes provisions that,
one, clarify reporting deadlines and ensure Congress receives
agency reports at the same time as the White House Office of
Science and Technology Policy; two, helps SBIR and STTR
grantees by increasing the portion of their award available for
taking their ideas from concept to commercialization, creating
more flexibility and funding guidelines for technical and
business assistance grants, and expanding the number of local
vendors eligible to provide services to awardees; and three,
requires the Department of Defense to report to Congress any
goals and incentives they devise to boost inclusion of SBIR and
STTR develop technologies into larger programs of record.
This amendment includes many good bipartisan efforts to
improve the SBIR and STTR programs and strengthens the
underlying bill, and I urge my colleagues to support the
Manager's Amendment.
Is there any further discussion on the Manager's Amendment?
The gentleman from--yes--is recognized, Mr. Lipinski.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I speak in favor of the Manager's Amendment just quickly.
The second provision that you mentioned that was added in the
Small Business Committee is the Support Startup Businesses Act
of 2017, or Startup Act, which I introduced with
Representatives Lujan and Schneider 2 weeks ago. It enjoys
support in both the House and the Senate. It would increase the
cap of the amount of each SBIR and STTR awards that can be used
for technical assistance, so I think it's very important to be
able to pay for things like market research, intellectual
property protection or participation in entrepreneurial
training programs like I-Corps. So it lets small businesses use
their funds where they know they're needed the most, and so I
think this would be very helpful to those who receive these
grants.
So I thank the Chairman for the Manager's Amendment, and I
yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski.
And there is no further discussion on the amendment, the
question is on agreeing to the Manager's Amendment.
All in favor, say aye.
And opposed, no.
The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
The next amendment on the roster is offered by the
gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Loudermilk, and does the gentleman
wish to be recognized?
Mr. Loudermilk. Ye, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at
the desk.
Chairman Smith. The clerk will read the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2763 offered by Mr. Loudermilk
of Georgia, amendment number 001.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, and the gentleman is recognized to explain
the amendment.
Mr. Loudermilk. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My amendment seeks to focus the attention of the new
Administrator of the Small Business Administration on the fact
that the SBA has failed to submit a statutorily required annual
SBIR/STTR report to Congress since 2014.
The amendment simply states that if the SBA fails to submit
the reports on time, the Administrator's travel budget is
frozen unless a statutorily required annual report is submitted
to Congress.
At the SBIR/STTR hearing several weeks ago, the GAO witness
highlighted the SBA's failure to provide objective information
to Congress as a major impediment to informed decisionmaking
and a liability in terms of congressional oversight of possible
waste, fraud, and abuse.
I recognize this amendment is a big hammer. However, I
think it shows Congress is serious about its oversight role and
statutory authority no matter which party is in charge of the
Administration.
I ask my colleagues to support me in this amendment to
protect and preserve the authority of Congress. I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Loudermilk, and I'll
recognize myself in support of the amendment.
Under the previous Administration, the SBA ignored a
statutory mandate to report annually to Congress on the SBIR
and STTR programs so that we can monitor their progress and
conduct oversight. I trust under the new Administration and
under the leadership of the new SBA Administrator, reports will
be on time, but if not, this amendment gives the SBA plenty of
incentive to follow the law. I'll recognize my colleague's
support of the amendment as well.
Is there any further discussion on the amendment?
If not, all in favor say aye.
All opposed, no.
The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
The next amendment on the roster is offered by the
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hultgren, and he is recognized for
that purpose.
Mr. Hultgren. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at
the desk.
Chairman Smith. The clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2763 offered by Mr. Hultgren
of Illinois, amendment number 019.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, and the gentleman is recognized to explain
his amendment.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My amendment encourages manufacturing innovation in the
United States by requiring Federal agencies to give a high
priority to the SBIR and STTR programs to small businesses
engaged in manufacturing R&D for the purpose of developing and
producing new products and technologies in the United States.
American manufacturing means jobs. A thriving manufacturing
sector is vital to our economy, putting people to work and
driving growth. Ten percent of all Illinois workers are
involved in manufacturing, and 12.4 percent of Illinois's gross
domestic product is attributable to manufacturing, making up
the largest share of Illinois GDP. Manufacturing facilities
employ more than 27,000 workers across the 14th congressional
District of Illinois, which I represent.
United States must continue to innovate manufacturing
operations, techniques and specialized products to remain
globally competitive. Making manufacturing innovation a high
priority in the SBIR and STTR programs is just one that
Congress can take action to spur the manufacturing sector.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your support of the amendment,
and I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Hultgren, and I'll recognize
myself in support of the amendment, though my comments may not
be quite so Illinois-centric as the gentleman's were.
American innovation in manufacturing is critical to our
economy and to creating the jobs of the future. The SBIR and
STTR programs should make it a priority to encourage production
in the United States and support new and innovative methods and
products for manufacturing, so I urge my colleagues to support
the amendment.
Is there any further discussion on the amendment?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the Hultgren
amendment.
All in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
Up next is an amendment to be offered by the gentleman from
Louisiana, Mr. Higgins, and he is recognized for that purpose.
Mr. Higgins. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Smith. And the clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2763 offered by Mr. Higgins of
Louisiana, amendment number 016.
Chairman Smith. And without objection, the amendment is
considered as read and the gentleman is recognized to explain
his amendment.
Mr. Higgins. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
My amendment ensures that Federal agencies give high
priority to small businesses that are engaged in cybersecurity
research and development for awarding SBIR and STTR grants.
Every day the American government and the U.S. businesses
are under attack from cyber threats. Cyber criminals and
foreign adversaries spend every hour of every day trying to
steal our valuable personal and government information. We must
use every tool in our arsenal to prevent, mitigate and defend
against these attacks. Small businesses and startups are where
some of the most innovative ideas and products exist for cyber
warfare.
My amendment ensures that Federal Government is harnessing
that expertise through the SBIR and STTR programs to meet one
of the greatest security challenges of the 21st century.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to offer this
amendment, and I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Higgins. By the way, we need
to get you some company on the front row there.
I'll recognize myself in support of your amendment.
I support the gentleman's amendment and thank him for his
leadership on cyber and other national security issues.
Cybersecurity is a critical national priority, and Federal
agencies should tap the SBIR and STTR programs to find
solutions. Not all Federal agencies involved in the SBIR and
STTR programs have cybersecurity in their missions, so I think
we can work with our colleagues on the Small Business Committee
to refine the language before the bill goes to the floor.
So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Is there any further discussion?
If not, all in favor of Mr. Higgins' amendment, say aye.
No?
The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
Up next is an amendment offered by the gentleman from
Illinois, Mr. Lipinski, and the gentleman is recognized for
that purpose.
Mr. Lipinski. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
Chairman Smith. The clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2763 offered by Mr. Lipinski
of Illinois, amendment number 025.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, and the gentleman is recognized to explain
his amendment.
Mr. Lipinski. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would build on
the SBIR/STTR program by requiring that funds be directed for a
proof of concept partnership pilot program, essentially, a
pilot for SBIR phase zero. The program would provide grants to
innovative technology transfer programs at universities,
research institutes, and national laboratories.
There are many reasons why scientists may not take the
initial steps to see if their invention or concept has
potential commercialization. They may lack sufficient funding,
business expertise, or they may not have considered the
possibility that their invention has commercial potential.
These limitation stand in the way of scientists and engineers
collaborating with businesses or investors to take their ideas
to the next level.
This amendment would provide funding for programs that
among other things actively seek out scientific discoveries
with commercial potential, fund technology acceleration and
validation, and provide entrepreneurial education to scientists
and engineers. These efforts will improve the commercialization
rate of Federal R&D, which in turn will create jobs and
strengthen the economy.
This amendment was formerly introduced as the Technology
and Research Accelerating National Security and Future Economic
Resiliency, or TRANSFER Act, in the 113th Congress by Mr.
Collins of New York and Mr. Kilmer of Washington, and passed
through this Committee with bipartisan support but it was never
enacted into law. Prior to the TRANSFER Act in the 2011 SBIR
reauthorization, I sponsored a provision to create a phase zero
pilot program at NIH. The NIH Centers for Accelerated
Innovations and Research Evaluation and Commercialization Hubs,
or REACH programs, are funded by this pilot program, and we
heard about these during the hearing that we held on the
reauthorization of this legislation of SBIR and STTR.
The REACH program creates three Centers in Kentucky,
Minnesota and New York. In their first 2 years, these three
Centers have produced 38 patent applications filed, 14
technology licenses negotiated, seven companies formed, 53
SBIR/STTR proposals submitted, and 70 promising technologies in
the pipeline. Perhaps more important than these numbers,
though, are the regional innovation ecosystems these
universities are helping to build.
This amendment would help greatly expand the number of
these types of successful centers around the country. A number
of organizations including the National Venture Capital
Association have expressed support for the TRANSFER Act. I urge
the adoption of this amendment, which I think would be greatly
helpful to the SBIR/STTR program and to American innovation,
and I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski, and I'll recognize
myself in support of the amendment, and I appreciate Mr.
Lipinski's work on this issue over a long period of time.
The amendment is based on the TRANSFER Act, a bipartisan
bill that the Science Committee has passed twice. The TRANSFER
Act helps American taxpayers see a greater return on their
Federal R&D investments by closing the gap between federally
funded R&D efforts and the commercialization of new products
and technologies. This means new products, technologies and
medicines can be brought to market faster, and I urge my
colleagues to support the amendment.
Is there any further discussion on the amendment?
If not--the Ranking Member, Ms. Johnson, is recognized.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll make my remarks
very brief and simply say that I do support the transfer of
this innovative technology from lab to the market. It's a good
idea, I supported the last one, and I ask all of us to support
the amendment.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
The question is on the amendment.
All in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
The next amendment is also by the gentleman from Illinois,
Mr. Lipinski, and he is recognized for that purpose.
Mr. Lipinski. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
Chairman Smith. And the clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2763 offered by Mr. Lipinski
of Illinois, amendment number 035.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, and the gentleman recognized to explain his
amendment.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The National Science Foundation's Innovation Corps, or I-
Corps program, was created administratively by NSF in 2011 and
authorized through language I authored, the American Innovation
and Competitiveness Act that became law last year.
The I-Corps program offers valuable entrepreneurial
education to scientists and engineers who are college research
faculty, graduate students and postdoctoral fellows. The
purpose is to help these individuals develop new innovative
products from the world-class research they have conducted in
their labs.
As everyone on this Committee knows, I've been an
evangelist for I-Corps for the past 7 years. The program has
had tremendous success through the NSF and has been expanded to
other agencies including DOE, NIH, DOD, USDA and DHS. It has
helped create new entrepreneurs and new tech jobs, and it's
helping Federal taxpayers get the most out of their investment
and research.
The current I-Corps program is successful in part to its
focus on providing specific types of education and mentoring
that budding entrepreneurs need at this initial stage when they
are first attempting to create a product based on research they
have conducted in the lab. But different types of support are
needed at later stages as a small business attempts to
establish itself and progress toward the market. These later
stages would be where a small business would be applying for an
SBIR/STTR phase I or phase II grant. To help provide the needed
assistance for small businesses receiving grants in these
phases, my amendment directs the NSF to create I-Corps phase I
and phase II.
We know that there are existing business accelerators,
university technology transfer programs, and training programs
carried out by NSF and other Federal agencies that provide
excellent templates for how to train and support early and mid-
stage companies in achieving growth, scale and market entry.
If my amendment were added to this bill, NSF would convene
experts from around the country and from a wide range of
academic, industry and government sectors to assemble a model
curriculum for phase I and II assistance by taking advantage of
the best practices and lessons learned from existing programs.
This training would be paid for out of the SBIR/STTR grants and
only when the grant recipients believe this type of training
would provide a better chance for the business to be
successful; that is, it would not be required of all grantees.
The creation of I-Corps phase I and phase II could be a big
boost to the goal of the SBIR program by helping small
businesses create new jobs and helping taxpayers get a better
return on their investments than SBIR/STTR grants. This is
something everyone can and should support.
However, the Chairman has expressed a desire to have a
broader discussion on this issue and to gather more information
before moving forward. So at his request, I'm willing to
withdraw this amendment as long as the Chairman gives me his
assurance that we will have a hearing on this topic, hopefully
soon, September, and then moving forward legislatively on this
issue.
So I thank the Chairman and will yield to the Chairman.
Chairman Smith. OK. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski. Let me comment
on the amendment and then respond to your suggestion as well.
I appreciate your leadership and support of the I-Corps
program. We do need to work with the National Science
Foundation and external stakeholders on how to best leverage
and build on the program's success. I look forward to working
with the gentleman about holding a hearing to elicit ideas on
how to strengthen the I-Corps program, encourage more
entrepreneurs and startups, and create jobs.
So I thank the gentleman for working with us on this issue
and appreciate his anticipated withdrawal of the amendment.
Mr. Lipinski. But what about that hearing?
Chairman Smith. I will assure the gentleman that we will
have a hearing either this millennium, this century, this
decade, this year, this fall, and possibly in September.
Mr. Lipinski. I hope that possibly is a little stronger
than that, and if it is, I guess right now I'll ask unanimous
consent to withdraw my amendment.
Chairman Smith. OK. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski. Without
objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
The next amendment on the roster is offered by the
gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney, and he is recognized.
Mr. McNerney. I thank the Chairman. I've got an amendment
at the desk.
Chairman Smith. The clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2763 offered by Mr. McNerney
of California, amendment number 049.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, and the gentleman from California is
recognized to explain his amendment.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
One of the four objectives that Congress had in mind in
establishing the SBIR program was to facilitate the increased
participation by minority and disadvantaged persons in the
technological innovation process. To date, 11 Federal agencies
participating in the SBIR program have had participation for
minority-owned businesses vary significantly from year to year.
We need to address this inequity.
My amendment requires participating Federal agencies to
conduct outreach to minority-serving institutions and the
faculty that conduct research at those institutions. By doing
so, we can enhance awareness and opportunities for mosquitoes
and disadvantaged persons about the benefits and participates--
and partnerships available through the SBIR and STTR programs.
My amendment uses the definition under SBA that's been in place
for decades and is widely accepted. There are a great many
minority-serving institutions and researchers who work at these
institutions across the country. MSIs serve high concentrations
of minority students who have historically been
underrepresented in higher education. For example, CSU
Stanislaw in my district is a minority-serving institution
that's been ranked as one of the best colleges in our Nation.
Our country depends on innovation of MSIs and intellectual
capital of its graduates.
In the 21st century, the growth of the American economy is
increasingly going to be determined by the proliferation and
innovation of technology and STEM-focused businesses. We should
seek ideas and partnerships across the Nation, not limiting
opportunities. It's critical to the growth of our economy that
minority-owned businesses are connected to the technological
ecosystem.
Basically, this amendment is simple. It just requires
outreach to minority-serving institutions so there's consistent
participation. It makes sense. I urge my colleagues to support
it, and I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. McNerney. I'll recognize
myself in opposition to the amendment, but before I go into my
objections, I wonder if the gentleman from California would
consider withdrawing the amendment with this assurance: That I
am almost 100 percent confident we are going to be able to
agree on language between now and the House floor because we've
had similar language in past bills that this Committee has
considered. As the gentleman knows, we had a compromise that we
were discussing. We really ran out of time before we could
reach an agreement on the language, but again, I'm fairly
confident that we can reach an agreement between now and the
House floor and would like not to oppose the gentleman's
amendment in detail right now unless he insists on it. And the
gentleman is recognized to respond.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the Chairman for the offer, and
I appreciate the effort that's been made. I want to continue
that on a bipartisan basis. I think we had a little trouble
with a couple of our definitions, and I just want to make sure
that the Chairman understands that those are critical. They've
been in use for decades, and we need to be careful when we
tread down that path.
Chairman Smith. I certainly understand that.
Mr. McNerney. All right. With the Chairman's agreement in
hand or cooperation in hand, I will agree to withdraw the
amendment.
Chairman Smith. OK. Thank you. Without objection, the
amendment is withdrawn, and again, Mr. McNerney, I'm sure that
we can reach some agreement on acceptable language that will be
bipartisan.
Mr. McNerney. All right, Mr. Chairman. With unanimous
consent, I ask to withdraw the amendment.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. McNerney.
The final amendment on the roster is offered by the
gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, and he is recognized for
that purpose.
Mr. Tonko. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Smith. The clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2763 offered by Mr. Tonko of
New York, amendment number----
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, and the gentleman is recognized to explain
his amendment.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This amendment expresses a sense of Congress that agencies
should consider providing additional support for the SBIR and
STTR programs.
The SBIR and STTR programs are of utmost importance to our
Nation. I am pleased to see the Committee preserve and improve
upon these critical programs. I along with millions of our
fellow American recognize the value of innovative research. I
will continue to fight to strengthen funding for agencies that
support such cutting-edge research, and by extension, funding
for the SBIR and STTR programs.
These programs have a proven record of driving innovation
that has played a major role in American job creation,
increased productivity, and United States global
competitiveness. These programs have proven to be among the
most successful drivers of technological innovation in our
Nation's history, delivering more than 70,000 patents and
revolutionary achievements in agriculture, in defense, in
energy, health sciences, homeland security, space,
transportation, and other fields. Thanks to phase I and phase
II SBIR, countless jobs have been created in my own capital
region of New York. Programs such as SBIR have helped our
region give birth to a boon in high-technology innovation and
economic development.
Numerous reviews by the National Academies have found that
the SBIR and STTR programs are achieving their ambitious
objectives of stimulating technological innovation, increasing
small business participation in the Federal R&D enterprise, and
increasing the commercialization of federally funded research
and development. In fact, the National Academies surveys of
SBIR/STTR phase II awardees over a 10-year period found that 27
percent of sales from National Institutions of Health-funded
technologies and 36 percent of sales from National Science
Foundation technologies generated more than $1 million in
revenue.
Demand for the popular and highly competitive SBIR program
remains high. At the National Science Foundation, only 17.2
percent of phase I proposals are funded, and at the National
Institutes of Health, only 12.6 percent of phase I proposals
are funded.
For these reasons and more, I ask that you support this
sense of Congress to the extent it does not undermine other
research and development programs. Agencies should consider
providing additional support for the SBIR and STTR programs,
especially in technology areas that are high priority for an
agency's mission as well as for our Nation's economy.
Agencies are already able to provide additional support.
This amendment encourages them to do so in cases where it would
not undermine other research and development programs. This is
non-binding language. It simply encourages agencies to consider
providing additional support for these very successful
programs.
I recent held a roundtable in my district with SBIR and
STTR recipients, who expressed the extraordinary value of these
programs. I promised that I would do all that I can to support
these critical programs--a promise I intend to keep.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this simple
sense of Congress amendment to show our strong commitment to
the SBIR and STTR programs.
With that, I thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Tonko, and I'll need to
recognize myself in opposition to the amendment. But let me say
that I appreciate both the amendment and I appreciate the
gentleman's intent and I appreciate his desire to want to
increase funding for these two great programs.
However, I need to oppose the amendment. Both SBIR and STTR
receive all of their funding from Federal agencies' research
budgets. SBIR began with a deduction of .2 percent from
agencies' budgets. The SBIR allocation from basic research is
now 3.2 percent, or 16 times higher. Today, 11 Federal agencies
provide funding to small businesses through SBIR and five
agencies provide funding through STTR, a total of nearly $3
billion this year. That's over six times greater than the $45
million spent under the original program in 1983, or an average
increase of almost 200 percent per year.
There are other Committees in the House and Senate that
wanted to increase the set-asides in the last reauthorization.
Science Committee Republicans and Democrats last year stood
together to oppose the increase in set-asides and protect
funding for basic and fundamental research. So I can't support
the amendment that increases the set-asides for SBIR and STTR,
which is at the expense of Federal basic research budgets. In
other words, I could support it but I don't want to cut the
basic research, and I hope you understand that's the reason and
nothing more.
So I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment even
though, as I say, it's well intended, and if there was another
way to fund it without taking it out of basic research, I'd
support the resolution, but I need to oppose it at this point.
Are there other Members who wish to be recognized to
discuss the amendment? The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson,
is recognized.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the
last word.
Chairman Smith. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Johnson. I strongly support the SBIR program and would
like to see it grow. Like Mr. Tonko, I would like to see it
grow along with growing budgets for all of our important
research and development programs.
Unfortunately, under this Administration, critical science
and technology investments at many of our agencies are under
threat, which I believe really is the future of this Nation to
make sure that we have strong research and development.
The Trump Administration is even proposing to cut NIH by 20
percent, the National Science Foundation by 11 percent. Never
before have I seen such draconian cuts from any Administration,
Democrat or Republican.
I have confidence that Congress will reject many of these
harmful proposals but I worry that even Congress will not do
enough to ensure continued U.S. leadership in science and
technology.
This is simply a sense of Congress. Mr. Tonko lays out a
strong case for why the SBIR program is a valuable part of our
overall Federal R&D portfolio, and I associate myself with
those comments.
I supported the 2011 SBIR and STTR reauthorization bill
that included a 30 percent increase for the programs. The SBIR
and STTR programs are currently authorized through Fiscal Year
2022 at a combine set-aside level of 3.65 percent. Given our
current budget environment, I supported and continue to support
the flat 5-year extension included in last year's National
Defense Authorization Act, and I do not believe we should
revisit the terms of that agreement.
Mr. Tonko's amendment includes a non-binding sense of
Congress that agencies should consider increasing their
investments in the SBIR program without undermining other R&D
programs. There may be some procurement agencies that would see
a net benefit from voluntarily increasing their support by--for
SBIR in technology areas relevant to their own mission. For
other agencies, especially the basic research agencies, the
tradeoff involves an increasing support for small business R&D
and may not make--as I said in my opening statement, our basic
research enterprise is already at risk due to flat or
decreasing funding and the historically low proposal success
rates. The 17.2 percent success rate for National Science
Foundation's SBIR phase I grants as described in Mr. Tonko's
amendment is troubling. Unfortunately, it is equal to or higher
than the proposed success rates across most of the engineering
directorate or at NSF.
Other research programs at NSF are even worse off. We
cannot afford to take any actions that would further
destabilize the basic research foundation upon which our entire
innovation is built.
I want to thank Mr. Tonko for his carefully considered
amendment, and I believe it strikes the right balance of
supporting the SBIR programs without doing any harm to any
important Federal reserve programs. I support this amendment
and encourage my colleagues to do the same. This is simply a
sense of Congress.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
Any other Member wish to speak on this amendment?
If not, the question is on----
Mr. Tonko. Mr. Chair?
Chairman Smith. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. Tonko. Mr. Chair, if I might?
Chairman Smith. The gentleman from New York is recognized.
Mr. Tonko. You know, just like the global race on space in
the 1960's, which required our total investment and focus in a
bipartisan way to achieve victory, as we did in 1969 by landing
an American as the first on the Moon, we're in the midst of an
innovation global race, and I think that this Committee is
assigned the awesome responsibility of recognizing the tools
that we need in the kit for our industries and our Nation to
grow successfully in this innovation race.
I think the statement here made by the Committee is just
that, that it's a sense of Congress. We would be recognized as
partners with the agencies to say we do all that we can to
provide the resources we need for SBIR and STTR.
When I had my roundtable with the recipients from those
programs in my district most recently, they raised the issue
that they go to international conferences, and because these
two programs are so successful, other nations are setting up
like programs and they're going to go beyond what we're funding
here and we're going to lose intellect and we're going to lose
innovation if we don't invest and at least encourage it. It
should be this Committee's mission to say we can do better, we
must do better.
With that, I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Will the gentleman yield to me before he
yields back?
Mr. Tonko. Yes, sir.
Chairman Smith. I just want to make two points, and I don't
know that I disagree with a single word that the gentleman said
and said well. My objections are that the funding for these
programs have been increasing, as I mentioned a while ago, at
almost 200 percent per year, and any money, additional money
that goes to these two programs is going to come you f basic
research, and I do not want to see that cut at all, and so I'll
be happy to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. Tonko. Yes. Thank you.
We should also see it as our responsibility to suggest that
perhaps these agencies need more dollars. Caving in here
because we're limiting ourselves when we have an opportunity to
raise that limitation that's been imposed, I'm really concerned
about where this Administration is taking us in the midst of an
innovation economy. It's about research, it's about innovation,
and if we're taking those tools away, those investments away,
if we're dumbing down, this should be an encouragement from
this Committee to say we need to do more at these agencies that
are in the midst of an innovation economy.
We're transitioning into something brand new here, and now
is not the time to just dip our toe in the water and walk away.
We need to plunge into it and give the private sector the tools
it needs and the partnership it requires.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Tonko.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Smith. The gentleman from California, Mr.
Rohrabacher, is recognized.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Let me just note, I respect the
gentleman's opinion and I know that there's a difference in
approach between the two sides of the aisle but we can respect
each other, and I do respect the idea that we need to spend
more. That's the concept. We hear it off and on just about
every subject. Let me just note that on this side of the aisle,
we generally say we don't need to spend more, we need to spend
better. We need to be more cognizant of the value of what we're
doing, and we need to make sure that we are fine-tuning this so
that the money that is being spent is being taken out of other
areas of our economy, it's being spent for its best possible
purpose.
So I would support the Chairman's opposition, but
respecting the other side who obviously you have a desire to
achieve the best goals for our country, and so do we.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by Mr.
Tonko.
All in favor, say aye.
All opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair----
Mr. Tonko. Mr. Chair?
Chairman Smith [continuing]. The nos have it and the
amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. Tonko. Mr. Chair, I ask for a recorded vote, please.
Chairman Smith. A recorded vote has been requested, and the
clerk will call the roll. Mr. Perlmutter requested it too.
The clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Smith?
Chairman Smith. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes no.
Mr. Lucas?
Mr. Lucas. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Lucas votes no.
Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
Mr. Brooks?
Mr. Brooks. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Brooks votes no.
Mr. Hultgren?
Mr. Hultgren. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Hultgren votes no.
Mr. Posey?
Mr. Posey. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Posey votes no.
Mr. Massie?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Bridenstine?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Weber?
Mr. Weber. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Weber votes no.
Mr. Knight?
Mr. Knight. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Knight votes no.
Mr. Babin?
Mr. Babin. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Babin votes no.
Mrs. Comstock?
Mrs. Comstock. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Comstock votes no.
Mr. Palmer?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk?
Mr. Loudermilk. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk votes no.
Mr. Abraham?
Mr. Abraham. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Abraham votes no.
Mr. LaHood?
Mr. LaHood. No.
The Clerk. Mr. LaHood votes no.
Mr. Webster?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Banks?
Mr. Banks. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Banks votes no.
Mr. Biggs?
Mr. Biggs. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes no.
Mr. Marshall?
Mr. Marshall. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Marshall votes no.
Mr. Dunn?
Mr. Dunn. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Dunn votes no.
Mr. Higgins?
Mr. Higgins. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Higgins votes no.
Ms. Johnson?
Ms. Johnson. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes aye.
Ms. Lofgren?
Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren votes aye.
Mr. Lipinski?
Mr. Lipinski. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Lipinski votes aye.
Ms. Bonamici?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Bera?
Mr. Bera. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Bera votes aye.
Ms. Esty?
Ms. Esty. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Esty votes aye.
Mr. Veasey?
Mr. Veasey. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Veasey votes aye.
Mr. Beyer?
Mr. Beyer. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Beyer votes aye.
Ms. Rosen?
Ms. Rosen. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Rosen votes aye.
Mr. McNerney?
Mr. McNerney. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. McNerney votes aye.
Mr. Perlmutter?
Mr. Perlmutter. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Perlmutter votes aye.
Mr. Tonko?
Mr. Tonko. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Tonko votes aye.
Mr. Takano?
Mr. Takano. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Takano votes aye.
Mr. Foster?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Hanabusa?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Crist?
Mr. Crist. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Crist votes aye.
Ms. Bonamici?
Ms. Bonamici. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Bonamici votes aye.
Chairman Smith. Are there any Members who wish to cast
their vote or change their vote? And if not, the clerk will
report the vote.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, 14 Members have voted aye, 18
Members have voted nay.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. The nays have it, and the amendment is not
agreed to.
The gentleman from Illinois is recognized to cast a late
vote as long as it's no. OK. Dr. Foster will be recorded as
having voted aye.
If there are no further amendments, a reporting quorum
being present, I move that the Committee on Science, Space and
Technology report H.R. 2763 to the House as amended with the
recommendation that the bill be approved.
The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 2763 to the
House as amended.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, nay.
The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered reported
favorably.
Without objection, the Motion to Reconsider is laid upon
the table. H.R. 2763 is ordered reported to the House, and I
ask unanimous consent that staff be authorized to make any
necessary technical and conforming changes. Without objection,
so ordered.
Thank you all for a great attendance today, a great
discussion on an important bill, and we stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:59 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
H.R. 2763, Amendment Roster
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE
MARKUP ON H.R. 1159,
UNITED STATES AND ISRAEL
SPACE COOPERATION ACT
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2017
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:04 a.m., in
room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar
Smith [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
H.R. 1159
Chairman Smith. The Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recesses of the Committee at any time.
Pursuant to Committee Rule II(e) and House Rule
112(2)(h)(4), the Chair announces that he may postpone roll
call votes.
Today we meet to consider H.R. 1159, the United States and
Israel Space Cooperation Act and pursuant to notice, I now call
up H.R. 1159, the United States and Israel Space Cooperation
Act, and the clerk will report the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 1159, a bill to provide for continuing
cooperation between the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration and the Israel Space Agency, and for other
purposes.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the bill is considered
as read and open for amendment at any point.
I'll recognize myself for an opening statement, and then
the Ranking Member designee for his opening statement.
Israel and the United States have a long history of shared
cooperation, including space exploration and research.
Scientists have collaborated on space research to advance both
nations' understanding of the universe. NASA and the Israeli
Space Agency have also formalized their cooperation in various
agreements over the last 30 years.
Our two countries were bonded in 2003 when the first
Israeli astronaut, Ilan Ramon, perished along with the other
members of the Space Shuttle Columbia crew. Since then, Israel
and the United States have cooperated on various experiments
and space activities to the benefit of both nations.
On October 13th, 2015, NASA and the Israeli Space Agency
entered into a 10-year agreement to continue cooperation on
areas of mutual interest in space. This agreement laid out the
terms and conditions that will facilitate future cooperation,
including export controls, technology transfer guidelines,
intellectual property protections, and facility and system
access controls. These terms and conditions will ensure that
our partnership is productive and fruitful.
This legislation was introduced by Derek Kilmer, a former
Member of this Committee, and Jim Bridenstine, a current
Member. It reinforces cooperation between the United States and
Israel, and advances our common goal of space exploration. I
support the legislation and recommend it to my colleagues.
Prepared Statement of Chairman Smith
Israel and the United States have a long history of shared
cooperation, including space exploration and research.
Scientists have collaborated on space research to advance
both nations' understanding of the universe.
NASA and the Israeli Space Agency have also formalized
their cooperation in various agreements over the last 30 years.
Our two countries were bonded in 2003, when the first
Israeli astronaut, IIan Ramon, perished along with the other
members of the Space Shuttle Columbia crew.
Since then, Israel and the United States have cooperated on
various experiments and space activities to the benefit of both
nations.
On October 13th, 2015, NASA and the Israeli Space Agency
entered into a 10 year agreement to continue cooperation on
areas of mutual interest in space.
This agreement laid out the terms and conditions that will
facilitate future cooperation, including export controls,
technology transfer guidelines, intellectual property
protections, and facility and system access controls. These
terms and conditions will ensure that our partnership is
productive and fruitful.
This legislation was introduced by Derek Kilmer, a former
member of this Committee, and Jim Bridenstine, a current
member. It reinforces cooperation between the United States and
Israel, and advances our common goal of space exploration.
I support the legislation and recommend it to my
colleagues.
Chairman Smith. And now the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Beyer, is recognized for his opening statement.
Mr. Beyer. Good morning, and I want to thank our Chairman
for holding this markup.
Today we're marking up H.R. 1159, the United States and
Israel Space Cooperation Act. It is sponsored by Congressman
Derek Kilmer and Congressman Jim Bridenstine.
One of the original objectives when Congress created NASA
in 1958 was peaceful international cooperation. NASA's
international collaborations have yielded many technical
achievements. However, perhaps just as noteworthy are the
diplomatic advances that have been achieved as the result of
the goodwill that has been garnered from NASA's work with other
nations.
One of the highlights of NASA's work in this area was the
Apollo-Soyuz flight in 1975, which provided a peaceful avenue
of cooperation with the Soviet Union at the height of the cold
war, and later NASA collaborated with 15 other countries to
construct and utilize the International Space Station.
Even today, in the midst of the many difficulties we're
having with Russia, our ongoing collaborative work on the
International Space Station remains a bright point in the
relations between our country and Russia.
The country of Israel has also been an active collaborator
with NASA, and these collaborations have been related to
research, education, and spaceflight. Israel has also shared
our Nation's pain on one of the darkest days of our space
program. As Chairman Smith noted, an Israeli astronaut, Ilan
Ramon, was one of the astronauts who tragically perished in the
Space Shuttle Columbia accident.
The bill before us today will help ensure that our close
collaboration with Israel in space will continue into the
future, and I strongly support its passage.
I want to thank Mr. Kilmer and Mr. Bridenstine for
introducing this bill, and I want to thank Chairman Smith for
holding today's markup.
With that, sir, I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Beyer.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Babin, is recognized for a
statement.
Mr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning. Today we mark up H.R. 1159, the United States
and Israel Space Cooperation Act.
Israel and the United States have a very long history of
shared cooperation including space exploration and research.
Scientists have collaborated on space research to advance both
nations' understanding of the universe.
NASA and the Israeli Space Agency have also formalized
their cooperation in various agreements over the last 30 years.
The bond between our two countries was forged deeper with the
tragic loss in 2003 of the Space Shuttle Columbia crew, which
included the first Israeli astronaut, Ilan Ramon.
Since then, Israel and the United States have cooperated on
various experiments and space activities to the benefit of both
of our nations. Space exploration offers humanity the
opportunity to work toward common goals and our shared
interests. It presents challenges of discovery that unite us
all under a common banner regardless of our nationality.
This legislation would reinforce the bond between the
United States and Israel and advance our common goals of
discovery, inspiration and exploration, and I fully support
this legislation and recommend its swift passage.
Thank you, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Prepared Statement of Mr. Babin
Good morning, I am glad you could join us for today's mark-
up of H.R. 1159, the United States and Israel Space Cooperation
Act.
Cooperation on the peaceful uses of outer space is special.
Certainly, it is important to find common ground with our
friends and allies in our profound appreciation for the
wonderful and awe-inspiring mysteries of the cosmos.
However, in a time of turmoil and scarce resources, it is
also vital that any common effort produce concrete
accomplishments and returns for our citizens as well as those
of our close allies.
This legislation succeeds on both accounts. It brings
Israel and the United States closer together in the peaceful
use and exploration of outer space. In doing so, this
cooperation will benefit the researchers, scientists, and
citizens of both our nations. The US has had a close
relationship with the Israeli space program since its infancy,
more than three decades ago. Our space cooperation with Israel
blossomed and grew until NASA launched the first Israeli
astronaut into space, Ilan Ramon.
Tragically, Ilan's first flight in 2003 was the final
voyage of the Space Shuttle Columbia. That terrible accident
was, in some ways, a symbol of the relationship between our two
great nations. We are bound together in times of both triumph
and sorrow. Our journey to the stars together has been, and
will continue to be, a symbol of our voyage together as
nations.
In 2015, more than 10 years after the Columbia accident,
NASA and the Israeli Space Agency renewed their commitment to
partnership, signing a 10-year agreement on peaceful
cooperation in space.
That agreement elaborated a host of conditions to protect
sensitive information that both nations possess. It also
reaffirmed that all existing laws and regulations would remain
in force.
This agreement, which will be further strengthened by the
legislation under consideration today, will benefit both our
nations.
Peaceful exploration and use of space offers all humanity a
common, noble goal; extending our collective reach further into
the heavens. Extending that reach and broadening our
understanding of the universe is one of the most important and
honorable challenges we can face together.
I believe that increasing cooperation between NASA and our
allies is vital. It is my belief - and hope - that bringing our
two space agencies closer together will make us more than the
sum of our parts.
I support the legislation and recommend its swift passage.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Babin.
And the gentlewoman from Nevada, Ms. Rosen, is recognized
for a statement as well.
Ms. Rosen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the
last word.
Chairman Smith. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Rosen. Mr. Chairman, I want to lend my voice of support
to this important legislation of which I'm proud to be a
cosponsor. H.R. 1159 will reaffirm our commitment to the U.S.-
Israel relationship to robust cooperation between our two
countries in space exploration and other scientific endeavors.
This legislation is personally important to me both as a
former systems analyst and computer scientist who believes
deeply in supporting science and discovery, and also as a
former president of the largest Reform synagogue in Nevada with
a thriving Jewish community that cares deeply about Israel.
In the face of increasing threats in the Middle East and
rising global anti-Semitism, the bonds between the United
States and Israel are more important now than they ever have
been. Israel is a beacon of democracy in the region, a
strategic ally and economic partner, and a friend, and for
these reasons, we must continue to strengthen our relationship
in a variety of areas critical to our security and economy from
missile defense, to joint training, research and development,
intelligence sharing, and of course, our activities in space.
In addition to being an important diplomatic step, H.R.
1159 is also a reaffirmation of this body's support for
scientific discovery. It is those moments of national awe and
wonder like the Moon landing from my childhood that inspired
children everywhere to pursue careers in science, technology,
engineering, and math.
Today, by reporting this legislation out of Committee, we
are saying with one voice that we remain committed to inspiring
the next generation both here and in Israel and look upwards to
pursue their dreams.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this bill, and thank
Congressmen Kilmer, Bridenstine, and Veasey for introducing it,
and to all my colleagues on the Committee, I urge its immediate
adoption.
Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Rosen.
Are there any other statements?
If not, are there any amendments?
And if not, a reporting quorum being present, I move that
the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology report H.R.
1159 to the House with the recommendation that the bill be
approved.
The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 11159 to the
House as amended.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, say nay.
The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered reported
favorably.
Without objection, the Motion to Reconsider is laid upon
the table. H.R. 1159 is ordered reported to the House, and I
ask unanimous consent that staff be authorized to make any
necessary technical and conforming changes, and without
objection, so ordered.
Before we adjourn, I just want to thank all the Members who
are present for being here. Your reward is a very quick markup,
but I do appreciate everybody's attendance.
The other is that we are going to start the hearing of the
two Subcommittees, joint hearing of the two Subcommittees
immediately, because we expect votes at 10:15 and we'd like to
get in as much testimony and as many questions as we can. So
anyone who is on those two Subcommittees, if you'll just remain
maybe in your seats, we'll get going on that hearing. Anyone
else is welcome to stay, of course, if they have an interest in
the subject. The hearing is primarily on the past eclipse.
So with that, thank you all for being here, and we stand
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 9:12 a.m., the Committee proceeded to other
business.]
Appendix:
----------
H.R. 1159
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE
MARKUPS: H.R. 4376,
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY RESEARCH
INFRASTRUCTURE ACT OF 2017;
H.R. 4377, ACCELERATING AMERICAN
LEADERSHIP IN SCIENCE ACT OF 2017;
H.R. 4378, NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH
INFRASTRUCTURE ACT OF 2017;
H.R. 4375, STEM RESEARCH AND
EDUCATION EFFECTIVENESS AND
TRANSPARENCY ACT;
H.R. 4323, SUPPORTING VETERANS
IN STEM CAREERS ACT;
H.R. 4254, WOMEN IN AEROSPACE
EDUCATION ACT; AND
H.R. 3397, BUILDING BLOCKS
OF STEM ACT
----------
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2017
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in
room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar
Smith [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Chairman Smith. The Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is
authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any time.
Pursuant to Committee rule 2(e) and House rule XI(2)(h)(4),
the Chair announces that he may postpone roll call votes.
Today, we meet to consider H.R. 4376, the Department of
Energy Research Infrastructure Act of 2017; H.R. 4377, the
Accelerating American Leadership in Science Act of 2017; H.R.
4378, the Nuclear Energy Research Infrastructure Act of 2017;
H.R. 4375, the STEM Research and Education Effectiveness and
Transparency Act; H.R. 4323, the Supporting Veterans in STEM
Careers Act; H.R. 4254, the Women in Aerospace Education Act;
and H.R. 3397, the Building Blocks of STEM Act.
Now, all these seven bills are bipartisan bills, and we are
only expecting one amendment on each of two bills, I believe.
I'll recognize myself for an opening statement.
Today, we will consider the seven bills, starting with
three energy bills. Together, these first three bills direct
and authorize upgrades to Department of Energy facilities
across the country. DOE national labs host over 30,000
researchers each year. These bills provide infrastructure
investments that are crucial to ensuring America remains a
leader in basic research and innovation.
The first bill is H.R. 4376, the Department of Energy
Research Infrastructure Act. This legislation, sponsored by
Energy Subcommittee Vice Chairman Steve Knight and
Representative Dan Lipinski, authorizes funds from the DOE
Office of Science budget to complete construction of three
science infrastructure projects. The bill provides upgrades to
the ultraviolet and soft x-ray light source at Lawrence
Berkeley National Lab and the x-ray laser at SLAC National
Accelerator Lab at Stanford University, ensuring that these
facilities remain the best in the world. These Advanced Light
Sources facilitate research in chemistry, physics, biology,
medicine, and manufacturing.
The Knight bill also authorizes and directs the
construction of the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams at Michigan
State University through the DOE Nuclear Physics program. This
first-of-a-kind facility will allow researchers to study a
variety of rare isotopes, advancing science discoveries in
fields ranging from medicine to astrophysics.
The next energy bill is H.R. 4377, the Accelerating
American Leadership in Science Act. This legislation authorizes
upgrades to the Advanced Photon Source at Argonne National Lab
and the Spallation Neutron Source at Oak Ridge National Lab. It
also funds the construction of the Long Baseline Neutrino
Facility, which, once completed, will be the premiere
international facility in high-energy physics.
I want to thank this bill's sponsors, Representative Randy
Hultgren and Representative Bill Foster, for their longstanding
support of basic research and investments in these best-in-the-
world science facilities.
H.R. 4378, the Nuclear Energy Research Infrastructure Act,
is our third energy bill today. H.R. 4378, sponsored by Energy
Subcommittee Chairman Randy Weber and full Committee Ranking
Member Eddie Bernice Johnson, authorizes funds to construct the
Versatile Neutron Source, a DOE fast neutron user facility that
will facilitate the development of the next generation of
nuclear reactors by the private sector. Advanced nuclear
reactor technology provides the best opportunity to make
reliable, emission-free electricity available throughout the
industrial and developing world. This user facility will ensure
U.S. companies develop this critical advanced reactor
technology in the United States.
Next, we will consider four bipartisan STEM bills. The
first is H.R. 4375, the STEM Research and Education Efficiency
and Transparency Act, which requires a report to Congress on
the effectiveness of NSF STEM education programs to help
determine what investments work and which are not effective.
The bill also improves the collection and reporting of data on
individual Federal research grant applications to ensure
transparency. I want thank Research and Technology Subcommittee
Chairwoman, Mrs. Comstock, and Ranking Member Johnson for their
work on STEM issues and in particular promoting opportunities
for women in STEM.
The next STEM bill is H.R. 4323, the Supporting Veterans in
STEM Careers Act, which promotes veteran involvement in STEM
education and research programs at NSF, including computer
science and cybersecurity. The bill also establishes a
Subcommittee at the National Science and Technology Council on
veterans and military families.
I thank the lead sponsors of this bill, Congressman Dunn,
an 11-year Army veteran and M.D.; and Mr. Takano, both Members
of this Committee and the Veterans Affairs Committee as well.
I'd also like to acknowledge the six Science Committee
Members who are original cosponsors of the bill and military
veterans: Roger Marshall, Barry Loudermilk, Ralph Abraham,
Brian Babin, Steve Knight, and Jim Banks.
The third STEM bill is H.R. 4254, the Women in Aerospace
Education Act, which strengthens aerospace work force
opportunities for women. It provides for internships at
national labs and NASA centers through the NSF Noyce Teacher
Scholarship Program and NASA fellowship opportunities. I thank
the sponsors, Mr. Knight and Ms. Esty, for their work on
promoting STEM opportunities for women.
And, Ms. Esty, I know you've been promoting that for years
in fact, so nice to come to fruition.
The fourth STEM bill we will consider is H.R. 3397, the
Building Blocks of STEM Act, which directs NSF to support STEM
education research focused on early childhood. Ms. Rosen and
Mr. Knight are the sponsors of this bill, and we appreciate
their work as well.
Prepared Statement of Chairman Smith
Today we will consider seven bills, starting with three
energy bills. Together, these first three bills direct and
authorize upgrades to Department of Energy (DOE) facilities
across the country. DOE national labs host over 30,000
researchers each year. These bills provide infrastructure
investments that are crucial to ensuring America remains a
leader in basic research and innovation.
The first bill is H.R. 4376, the Department of Energy
Research Infrastructure Act. This legislation, sponsored by
Energy Subcommittee Vice Chairman Steve Knight and Rep. Dan
Lipinski, authorizes funding from the DOE Office of Science
budget to complete construction of three science infrastructure
projects.
The bill provides upgrades to the ultraviolet and soft x-
ray light source at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and the x-
ray laser at SLAC National Accelerator Lab at Stanford
University, ensuring that these facilities remain the best in
the world.
These advanced light sources facilitate research in
chemistry, physics, biology, medicine and manufacturing.
The Knight bill also authorizes and directs the
construction of the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams at Michigan
State University through the DOE Nuclear Physics program. This
first-of-a kind facility will allow researchers to study a
variety of rare isotopes, advancing science discoveries in
fields ranging from medicine to astrophysics.
The next energy bill is H.R. 4377, the Accelerating
American Leadership in Science Act. This legislation authorizes
upgrades to the Advanced Photon Source at Argonne National Lab
and the Spallation Neutron Source at Oak Ridge National Lab. It
also funds the construction of the Long Baseline Neutrino
Facility, which once completed will be the premiere
international facility in high-energy physics.
I want to thank this bill's sponsors, Rep. Randy Hultgren
and Rep. Bill Foster, for their long-standing support of basic
research and investments in these best in the world science
facilities.
H.R. 4378, the Nuclear Energy Research Infrastructure Act
is our third energy bill today. H.R. 4378, sponsored by Energy
Subcommittee Chairman Randy Weber and full Committee Ranking
Member Eddie Bernice Johnson, authorizes funds to construct the
Versatile Neutron Source, a DOE fast neutron user facility that
will facilitate the development of the next generation of
nuclear reactors by the private sector.
Advanced nuclear reactor technology provides the best
opportunity to make reliable, emission-free electricity
available throughout the industrial and developing world.
This user facility will ensure U.S. companies develop this
critical advanced reactor technology in the United States.
Next, we will consider four bipartisan STEM bills.
The first is H.R. 4375, the STEM Research and Education
Efficiency and Transparency Act, which requires a report to
Congress on the effectiveness of NSF STEM education programs to
help determine what investments work and which are not
effective.
The bill also improves the collection and reporting of data
on individual federal research grant applications to ensure
transparency.
I thank the Research and Technology Subcommittee
Chairwoman, Mrs. Comstock, and Ranking Member Johnson for their
work on STEM issues and in particular promoting opportunities
for women in STEM.
The next STEM bill is H.R. 4323, the Supporting Veterans in
STEM Careers Act, which promotes veteran involvement in STEM
education and research programs at NSF, including computer
science and cybersecurity.
The bill also establishes a subcommittee at the National
Science and Technology Council on veterans and military
families.
I thank the lead sponsors of this bill, Congressman Dunn -
an 11-year Army veteran and M.D. - and Mr. Takano, both members
of this committee and the Veterans Affairs Committee as well.
I'd also like to acknowledge the six Science Committee
members who are original cosponsors of the bill and military
veterans: Roger Marshall, Barry Loudermilk, Ralph Abraham,
Brian Babin, Steve Knight and Jim Banks.
The third STEM bill is HR. 4254, the Women in Aerospace
Education Act, which strengthens aerospace workforce
opportunities for women. It provides for internships at
national labs and NASA Centers through the NSF Noyce Teacher
Scholarship Program and NASA fellowship opportunities.
I thank the sponsors, Mr. Knight and Ms. Esty, for their
work on promoting STEM opportunities for women.
The fourth STEM bill we will consider is H.R. 3397, the
Building Blocks of STEM Act, which directs NSF to support STEM
education research focused on early childhood. Ms. Rosen and
Mr. Knight are the sponsors of this bill, and we appreciate
their work.
Chairman Smith. I'll now recognize the Ranking Member,
Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, for her opening statement.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Chairman Smith, for
holding today's markup of seven bills, most or all of which
should receive bipartisan support.
Included in today's markup are four STEM education-related
bills: The STEM Research and Education Effectiveness and
Transparency Act, the Supporting Veterans in STEM Careers Act,
the Women in Aerospace Education Act, and the Building Blocks
of STEM Act. I want to voice my support for all of these bills,
each of which has bipartisan support.
I myself am cosponsor of the STEM Research and Education
Effectiveness and Transparency Act, which includes a section
from my own STEM Opportunities Act. I strongly believe that
encouraging STEM education, especially in historically
underserved groups is vital to ensuring a strong future for all
Americans. Each of these bills contribute to improving access
to STEM education in America, and I encourage my colleagues to
support them all.
We are also marking up three bills which promote research
at the Department of Energy: The Department of Energy Research
Infrastructure Act of 2017, the Accelerating American
Leadership in Science Act of 2017, and the Nuclear Energy
Research Infrastructure Act of 2017. I support each of these
bills. These bills will help to ensure that the Department of
Energy has cutting-edge facilities to conduct the
groundbreaking research we've come to expect of the Department.
I'm an original cosponsor of H.R. 4378, which establishes a
new facility that would be critical for the development of
advanced nuclear reactors. If we want American science and
industry to remain at the forefront, these types of DOE
research and user facilities are essential. I urge my
colleagues to support each of these bills, and I thank you, Mr.
Smith. I yield back.
Prepared Statement of Ms. Johnson
Thank you, Chairman Smith, for holding today's markup of
seven bills, most or all of which should receive bipartisan
support.
Included in today's markup are four STEM education related
bills: The STEM Research and Education Effectiveness and
Transparency Act, the Supporting Veterans in STEM Careers Act,
the Women in Aerospace Education Act, and the Building Blocks
of STEM Act. I want to voice my support for all of these bills,
each of which has bipartisan sponsorship.
I myself am a cosponsor of the STEM Research and Education
Effectiveness and Transparency Act, which includes a section
from my own STEM Opportunities Act. I strongly believe that
encouraging STEM education, especially in historically
underserved groups, is vital to ensuring a strong future for
all Americans. Each of these bills contributes to improving
access to STEM education in America, and I encourage my
colleagues to support them all.
We are also marking up three bills which promote research
at the Department of Energy: The Department of Energy Research
Infrastructure Act of 2017, the Accelerating American
Leadership in Science Act of 2017, and the Nuclear Energy
Research Infrastructure Act of 2017. I support each of these
bills.
These bills will help to ensure that the Department of
Energy has the cutting-edge facilities to conduct the
groundbreaking research we have come to expect of the
Department. I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 4378, which
establishes a new facility that will be critical for the
development of advanced nuclear reactors. If we want American
science and industry to remain at the forefront, these types of
DOE research and user facilities are essential. I urge my
colleagues to support each of these bills.
Thank you, Chairman Smith, and I yield back
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
H.R. 4376
Chairman Smith. Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R.
4376, the Department of Energy Research Infrastructure Act of
2017, and the clerk will report the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 4376, a bill to direct the Secretary of
Energy to carry out certain upgrades to research equipment and
the construction of a research user facility and for other
purposes.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the bill is considered
as read and open for amendment at any point.
And I'll recognize the sponsor of the bill, the gentleman
from California, Mr. Knight, for his opening statement.
Mr. Knight. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity
to speak on behalf of this important legislation.
H.R. 4376, the Department of Energy Research Infrastructure
Act of 2017, authorizes upgrades and construction of major user
facilities at Department of Energy national labs and
universities. My bill will support the research infrastructure
needed to conduct leading basic energy science and nuclear
physics research initiatives here in the United States.
The Advanced Light Source (ALS) at Lawrence Berkeley
National Lab is a specialized particle accelerator that
generates bright beams of x-ray light for scientific research.
The proposed upgrade to this facility will ensure that DOE can
maintain ALS's status as a world-class x-ray facility and allow
scientists to study the structure and behavior of materials at
extremely small scales.
The Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS) is the world's first
hard x-ray, free-electron laser. The proposed upgrade to this
facility, located at SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory at
Stanford University, will provide a major jump in imaging
capability and will enable researchers to perform
groundbreaking experiments in chemistry, materials, biology,
and energy.
The Facility for Rare Isotope Beams (FRIB) at Michigan
State University is a one-of-a-kind, linear accelerator user
facility that will allow researchers to study rare isotopes and
their properties. This facility will support research that
expands our understanding of atomic structures and could
facilitate discoveries in medicine and physics. The research
infrastructure authorized by this legislation will open the
door for American entrepreneurs to develop the next generation
of technology and train the next generation of researchers in
chemistry, physics, and materials science. H.R. 4376 reaffirms
the Federal Government's key role in basic research.
My home State of California has long been a world leader in
advanced science and technology and is home to millions of
entrepreneurs eager to take advantage of the best research
facilities in the world. It's our job in Congress to make sure
these facilities stay at the cutting edge of science, and keep
the next generation of scientists and inventors here in the
United States. These key user facility upgrades will enable
transformative discoveries in basic science, and will give the
private sector the tools they need to develop breakthrough
technologies in medicine, manufacturing, and energy.
In Congress, it is our responsibility to take a long-term
view and be patient. Making smart investments can lead to the
next big discovery. My bill funds the research infrastructure
necessary to make those discoveries possible.
I want to thank the Chairman. I want to thank
Representatives Lipinski, Chairman Weber, Randy Hultgren for
joining me as original cosponsors of this important
legislation. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Prepared Statement of Mr. Knight
Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to speak on
behalf of this important legislation.
H.R. 4376, the Department of Energy Research Infrastructure
Act of 2017, authorizes upgrades and construction of major user
facilities at Department of Energy (DOE) national labs and
universities.
My bill will support the research infrastructure needed to
conduct leading basic energy science and nuclear physics
research initiatives here in the U.S.
The Advanced Light Source at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
is a specialized particle accelerator that generates bright
beams of x-ray light for scientific research. The proposed
upgrade to this facility will ensure that DOE can maintain
ALS's status as a world-class x-ray facility, and allow
scientists to study the structure and behavior of materials at
extremely small scales.
The Linac Coherent Light Source is the world's first hard
X-ray, free-electron laser. The proposed upgrade to this
facility, located at SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory at
Stanford University, will provide a major jump in imaging
capability and will enable researchers to perform
groundbreaking experiments in chemistry, materials, biology and
energy.
The Facility for Rare Isotope Beams at Michigan State
University is a one-of-a-kind, linear accelerator user facility
that will allow researchers to study rare isotopes and their
properties. This facility will support research that expands
our understanding of atomic structures, and could facilitate
discoveries in medicine and physics.
The research infrastructure authorized by this legislation
will open the door for American entrepreneurs to develop the
next generation of technology, and train the next generation of
researchers in chemistry, physics and materials science.
H.R. 4376 reaffirms the federal government's key role in
basic research. My home state of California has long been a
world leader in advanced science and technology and is home to
millions of entrepreneurs eager to take advantage of the best
research facilities in the world. It's our job in Congress to
make sure these facilities stay at the cutting edge of science,
and keep the next generation of scientists and inventors here
in the United States.
These key user facility upgrades will enable transformative
discoveries in basic science, and will give the private sector
the tools they need to develop breakthrough technologies in
medicine, manufacturing and energy.
In Congress, it is our responsibility to take the long-term
view and be patient, making smart investments that can lead to
the next big discovery. My bill funds the research
infrastructure necessary to make those discoveries possible.
I want to thank Rep. Dan Lipinski, Chairman Lamar Smith,
Energy Subcommittee Chairman Randy Weber and Rep. Randy
Hultgren for joining me as original cosponsors of this
important legislation.
I encourage my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Chairman Smith. OK. Thank you, Mr. Knight.
And the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski, is
recognized.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
bringing forth these bipartisan bills today.
I want to thank my colleague from California, Mr. Knight,
for introducing this bill. I'm very happy to join him on the
bill. I also--I mention my support for the next two bills that
we are going to be considering: The Accelerating American
Leadership in Science Act and Nuclear Energy Infrastructure
Act. All these bills authorize funding for critical research
facilities that are within the Department of Energy. The
projects funded by these bills will support world-class
research facilities that are important for advancing fields of
energy, medicine, material science, geology, chemistry, and
many others. Not only do these research facilities advance our
scientific understanding, they also serve as tools to improve
our national security and support new product development.
One of the projects being authorized today is the Advanced
Photon Source Upgrade at Argonne National Lab, which is in my
district and also in Mr. Foster's district.
In addition to universities around the country, its user
community for the Advanced Photon Source include major
corporations such as Dow Chemical, Ford Motor Company, and GE,
so it has a great user base, very important for industry.
All of these large-scale DOE research tools are national
assets of a scale that only a Federal Government can provide,
and it's our investment in them that makes the United States a
world leader in research and innovation.
I want to urge my colleagues to support all these bills,
and I will yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski.
And the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, is recognized
for her statement.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
This legislation includes authorizations of important
upgrades for Department of Energy user facilities that are
really vital to the U.S. scientific enterprise. Our
laboratories are the crown jewels of American innovation, and
the user-driven science facilities at those laboratories and at
our universities are the foundation on which our leadership in
science is built. I'm very pleased to see this bipartisan
effort to expand our research capabilities of DOE, and I'm sure
this is an area in which we can continue to work together.
I strongly support the passage of H.R. 4376, the Department
of Energy Research Infrastructure Act of 2017, and I hope my
colleagues will join me in ensuring that this swift
consideration goes to the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Prepared Statement of Ms. Johnson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This legislation includes authorizations of important
upgrades to Department of Energy user facilities that are vital
to the U.S. scientific enterprise. Our laboratories are the
crown jewels of American innovation and the user-driven science
facilities at those laboratories and at our universities are
the foundation on which our leadership in science is built.
I am very pleased to see this bipartisan effort to expand
our research capabilities at DOE. I am sure this is an area in
which we can continue to work together.
I strongly support the passage of H.R. 4376, the Department
of Energy Research Infrastructure Act of 2017 and I hope my
colleagues will join me in ensuring its swift consideration on
the House floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
If there's no further discussion, a reporting quorum being
present, I move that the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology report H.R. 4376 to the House with the
recommendation that the bill be approved.
The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 4376 to the
House.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, nay.
The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered reported
favorably.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon
the table. H.R. 4376 is ordered reported to the House.
I ask unanimous consent that staff be authorized to make
any necessary technical and conforming changes, and without
objection, so ordered.
H.R. 4377
Chairman Smith. We will now go to H.R. 4377, and pursuant
to notice, I call up H.R. 4377, the Accelerating American
Leadership in Science Act of 2017, and the clerk will report
the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 4377, a bill to direct the Secretary of
Energy to carry out an upgrade to research equipment and
construction and construct research user facilities and for
other purposes.
Chairman Smith. And without objection, the bill is read--
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
I'll recognize the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Hultgren, for
his statement.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you so much, Chairman Smith. Thank you,
and I want to let you know how much I appreciate your work on
this, Chairman, and the Committee's work to get this
legislation moving forward. I'd also like to thank my
colleagues from Illinois, Mr. Foster and Mr. Lipinski, for
their support on this legislation. And I commend the Chairman
of the Energy Subcommittee, Mr. Weber, and the gentleman from
California, Mr. Knight, for their work on this bill and other
legislation to maintain American leadership in research
infrastructure.
I'd like to express my strong support for H.R. 4377, the
Accelerating American Leadership in Science Act. This
legislation authorizes priority research needs at our national
laboratories and comes after extensive work with the scientific
community and the Department of Energy Advisory Committees
laying out a responsible path forward for America to maintain
and build on our leadership role in scientific research.
Last night, the American winners of this year's Nobel Prize
visited Washington, DC, and had a reception at the Ambassador
of Sweden's residence. The prize ceremony in Sweden will be
early next month.
We have the bulk of this year's winners, which is not
unusual. The United States has nearly three times the number of
Nobel Laureates than any other country. And this is not by
chance. Before World War II, most countries were neck-and-neck.
After the war, America realized that leadership in science was
vital for our national security, as well as for our
competitiveness. It was our national labs, borne out of the
Manhattan Project, that gave our research community access the
tools which no one university or company could ever maintain.
This legislation continues our commitment to American
leadership.
This bill authorizes construction of the Long Baseline
Neutrino Facility, which this Committee heard about when it was
first proposed by the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel's P5
report. I was at the groundbreaking of the far site in South
Dakota earlier this year, and the international community has
already pledge support for--of over $100 million dollars to be
a part of this. This is an exciting time in science where more
projects are becoming international.
Upgrades to the Advanced Photon Source maintain our
leadership status in x-ray science, which have applications
that have led to two Nobel Prizes in chemistry, as well as
treatments for HIV and improvements in advanced manufacturing.
These upgrades are again responding to the research community,
and APS is already serving more than 6,000 researchers every
year.
Upgrades to the Oak Ridge Spallation Neutron Source were
again called out by the Basic Energy Science Advisory
Committee, calling these upgrades, and I quote, ``absolutely
central to contribute to world-leading science,'' end quote.
These upgrades would give the United States the most intense
pulsed neutron beam in the world, serving researchers looking
at material properties at the atomic level. Again, I'd like to
thank my colleagues for their work on this legislation and I
urge passage by this Committee as we try to bring this to the
floor.
And with that, Chairman, I yield back.
Prepared Statement of Mr. Hultgren
Thank you chairman, and I appreciate your and the
committee's work on this legislation.
I'd also like to thank my colleagues from Illinois, Reps.
Foster and Lipinski, for their support on this legislation. And
I commend the Chairman of the Energy Subcommittee, Mr. Weber,
and the gentleman from California, Mr. Knight, for their work
on this bill and other legislation to maintain American
leadership in research infrastructure.
I'd like to express my strong support for H.R. 4377, the
Accelerating American Leadership in Science Act. This
legislation authorizes priority research needs at our national
laboratories and comes after extensive work with the scientific
community, and the Department of Energy Advisory Committees,
laying out a responsible path forward for America to maintain,
and build on, our leadership role in scientific research.
Last night the American winners of this year's Nobel prizes
visited Washington, D.C., and had a reception at the Ambassador
of Sweden's residence. The Prize ceremony in Sweden will be
early next month. We have the bulk of this year's winners,
which is not unusual. The United States has nearly three times
the number of Nobel Laureates than any other country. And this
is not by chance. Before World War Two, most countries were
neck-in-neck. After the war, America realized that leadership
in science was vital for our national security as well as our
competitiveness. It was our National Labs, born out of the
Manhattan Project, that gave our research community access the
tools which no one university or company could ever maintain.
This legislation continues our commitment to American
leadership.
This bill authorizes construction of the Long Baseline
Neutrino Facility, which this committee heard about when it was
first proposed by the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel's P5
report. I was at the ground breaking of the far site in South
Dakota earlier this year, and the international community has
already pledge support for over 100 million dollars to be a
part. This is an exciting time in science where more projects
are becoming international, which we should build on.
Upgrades to the Advanced Photon Source (APS) maintain our
leadership status in xray science, which have applications that
have led to two Nobel prizes in chemistry, as well as
treatments for HIV and improvements in advanced manufacturing.
These upgrades are again responding to the research community,
and APS is already serving more than 6,000 researchers every
year.
Upgrades to the Oak Ridge Spallation Neutron Source were
again called out by the Basic Energy Science Advisory
Committee, calling these upgrades ``absolutely central to
contribute to world leading science.'' These upgrades would
give the United States the most intense pulsed neutron beam in
the world, serving researchers looking at material properties
at the atomic level.
Again, I would like to thank my colleagues for their work
on this legislation and I urge passage by the committee as we
try to bring this to the floor.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Hultgren.
And the--another gentleman from Illinois is recognized for
his opening statement, Mr. Foster.
Mr. Foster. Thank you, Chairman Smith and Ranking Member
Johnson, for holding this markup. I am proud to be offering
this bipartisan bill with my colleague, Mr. Hultgren from
Illinois, to authorize funding for three important projects:
Argonne's Advanced Photon Source, Fermilab's Long Baseline
Neutrino Facility, and Oak Ridge's Spallation Neutron Source
Proton Power Upgrade. I also want to thank Mr. Knight and Mr.
Lipinski, Mr. Weber, and Chairman Smith for their support as
cosponsors of this bill as well.
The United States has been at the forefront of innovation
and progress largely due to our investment in scientific
research. The Department of Energy laboratories have made
scientific discoveries that will be in the science textbooks
forever and have helped raise the standard of living for
millions of Americans. This scientific progress requires us to
take a long view. Discoveries--most discoveries are not made
overnight, and experiments need sustained attention and
resources for us to learn from them. Similarly, our scientific
infrastructure requires long-term sustained funding to ensure
opportunities are not missed.
Experiments conducted at Argonne National Laboratory's
Advanced Photon Source, or APS, support both discovery science
and market-driven research. Pharmaceutical research at the APS
has yielded lifesaving new drugs for HIV, melanoma, and renal
cell carcinoma. Industrial chemists have used the APS to
develop energy-saving solar shingles while combustion
researchers have developed a process that's led to cleaner
diesel engines. And research conducted at the APS led to a
Nobel Prize in chemistry in 2012 for work on G coupled protein
receptors, which are helping us develop more effective
medications to aid in our fight against opioid addiction.
The APS needs to be upgraded to ensure American scientists
and companies continue to have access to the best scientific
equipment in the world. The APS upgrade will use next-
generation technology to make the APS hundreds of times
brighter, opening up scientific frontiers at the nanoscale that
are completely inaccessible today. The upgrade leverages the
existing infrastructure, valued at about $1.5 billion, while
applying new technologies to create a world-leading facility at
substantially less cost than a new facility. This technology
includes some really incredible magnets that someone who has
spent a lot of his life optimizing magnet pole tip designs,
these are right at the edge of what is possible, and I have
great respect for our ability to pull this off. With this
upgrade, the APS will become the ultimate 3-D microscope, and
without it, the United States would lose its leadership in x-
ray science to Europe, Japan, and China.
The second critical project this bill authorizes is the
LBNF DUNE project, which is critical to maintaining U.S.
leadership in high-energy physics and fundamental science. This
facility, located at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in
Batavia, Illinois, where I worked for 25 years and raised my
family, and also at the Stanford--Sanford Underground Research
Facility in Lead, South Dakota, will be the first major
international world-class facility to be hosted by the United
States.
Neutrinos are most--among the most abundant and fascinating
particles in the universe, and understanding their nature may
provide the key to understanding some of the most fundamental
questions about the nature of our universe. LBNF DUNE would be
the most powerful tool in the world to study these particles
and would help solidify the Department of Energy's high-energy
physics program as a world leader. More than 770 scientists
from 150 institutions in 26 countries stand ready to contribute
scientifically and with materials to the LBNF DUNE project, and
I urge this Subcommittee to provide full and robust funding for
the Department of Energy's high-energy physics account.
And finally, the third project authorizes the Oak Ridge
Spallation Neutron Source Proton Power Upgrade. Oak Ridge's
National Laboratory's Spallation Neutron Source is the most
powerful pulsed neutron experimental facility in the world. It
provides researchers with a variety--in a variety of different
disciplines with the capabilities to make precise measurements
and answer the crucial fundamental questions that drive their
research. But there are international competitors particularly
in Europe that are challenging that leadership.
The proposal upgrades included in this bill, the second
target station and proton power upgrade, will enable this
facility to significantly increase the number of academic and
industrial researchers that it can serve and to maintain its
world-leading capabilities.
I'd also like to take note of the Department of Energy's
very thoughtful leadership of this project from the start. One
of the toughest things in a new project is trying to figure out
how much scope to leave for potential upgrades, and it was done
very well and very intelligently in the initial Spallation
Neutron Source design. It's making this upgrade much cheaper
than it would have been had it simply been taped on at the end
of the project.
Investments in these projects and our broader scientific
infrastructure are the only way to ensure that America remains
an international leader.
Thank you, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill
and yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Foster.
And the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, is recognized
for her opening statement.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Similar to the previous bill, this legislation would
authorize upgrades to the Department of Energy's user
facilities that were recommended by the Basic Energy Science
Advisory Committee. These upgrades are critical to U.S.
leadership in fundamental science and are important tools for
industry and university researchers. These investments could
significantly expand the number of users that can access these
facilities.
On that note, I'm encouraged to see the inclusion of
explicit authorization levels in the bill that we are
considering today.
I'd like to thank Congressman Foster for his work on the
Committee in highlighting the value of these user facilities,
and of course he has personal experience. He is likely the only
Member of Congress who can draw on his personal experience in
supporting this work.
And I hope we can continue this bipartisan collaboration to
authorize other vital research activities at the Federal
science agencies that we oversee. I strongly encourage my
colleagues to support and join me in voting for the bill.
And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and yield back.
Prepared Statement of Ms. Johnson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Similar to the previous bill, this legislation would
authorize upgrades to Department of Energy user facilities that
were recommended by the Basic Energy Science Advisory
Committee. These upgrades are critical to U.S. leadership in
fundamental science and are important tools for industry and
university researchers. These investments could significantly
expand the number of users that can access these facilities. On
that note, I am encouraged to see the inclusion of explicit
authorization levels in the bills we are considering today.
I would like to thank Congressman Foster's for his work on
the Committee in highlighting the value of these user
facilities. He is likely the only Member of Congress that can
draw on his personal experience in supporting this work. I hope
we can continue this bipartisan collaboration to authorize
other vital research activities at the Federal science agencies
that we oversee.
I strongly encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting
this bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
If there's no further discussion, a reporting quorum being
present, I move that the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology report H.R. 4377 to the House with the
recommendation that the bill be approved.
The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 4377.
All in favor, say aye.
Opposed, nay.
The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered reported
favorably.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon
the table. H.R. 4377 is ordered reported to the House.
And I ask unanimous consent that staff be authorized to
make any necessary technical and conforming changes. Without
objection, so ordered.
H.R. 4378
Chairman Smith. Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R.
4378, the Nuclear Energy Research Infrastructure Act of 2017.
And the clerk will report the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 4378, a bill to direct the Secretary of
Energy to carry out the construction of the Versatile Reactor
Base Fast Neutron Source and for other purposes.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the bill is considered
as read and open for amendment at any point.
And the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber, the Chairman of
the Energy Subcommittee, is recognized for his opening
statement.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. And I
appreciate the opportunity to speak on this critical
legislation.
I want to thank you and Ranking Member Johnson for
cosponsoring H.R. 4378, the Nuclear Energy Research
Infrastructure Act of 2017, and quite frankly for you all's
leadership in advocating for nuclear energy research and
development.
I am grateful for the opportunity to work alongside my
fellow Texans and the other Members of this Committee to
support research projects that will keep America safe, globally
competitive, and encourage nuclear innovation.
Last Congress, this Committee held hearings, met with
stakeholders, and worked extensively with our colleagues in the
Senate to draft the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act.
This comprehensive, bipartisan authorization bill directed the
DOE, Department of Energy, to invest in supercomputing
capabilities, create a framework for DOE to partner with the
private sector to host prototype development for advanced
reactors, and laid out a clear timeline and parameters for DOE
to complete a research reactor. This bill passed the House
three times last Congress and passed the House again in January
as a part of the DOE Research and Innovation Act.
The research reactor, or Versatile Neutron Source,
authorized in that bill is crucial for the development of
advanced reactor designs, materials, and nuclear fuels. This
type of research requires access to fast neutrons, which are
currently only available for civilian research in Russia. While
modeling and simulation can accelerate R&D, nuclear energy
research must be validated through a physical source, like a
research reactor. Today, we will consider my bill to authorize
specific funding to build that research reactor.
H.R. 4378 allocates funds from within the DOE Office of
Nuclear Energy for the construction of the Versatile Neutron
Source. This facility is a reactor-based, fast neutron source
that will operate as an open-access user facility in the DOE
national lab system and will facilitate academic and
proprietary research in the United States. Access to fast
neutrons is a critical part of the development of next-
generation materials and fuels for advanced nuclear reactor
technology.
The Versatile Neutron Source will also enable the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission to verify data on new fuels, materials,
and designs more efficiently, expediting regulatory approval
for advanced nuclear reactors. Without this user facility, this
research simply will not take place. We cannot afford to lose
the ability to develop innovative nuclear technology, and we
cannot rely on international partners to develop safe and
secure advanced reactors.
And as more developing nations look to nuclear energy to
grow their economies, America must maintain our nuclear
capabilities and continue to develop cutting-edge technology
here at home. Let me add from a national security perspective,
we want--no, make that we must have nuclear superiority. And so
this bill will also help maintain that capability for America
to influence security and proliferation standards around the
world by maintaining cutting-edge nuclear science.
By building this user facility, we will fortify the U.S.
commitment to safely advancing nuclear technology. H.R. 4378
will authorize funding to construct this critical user facility
and ensure that we keep the best nuclear scientists, engineers,
and entrepreneurs working right here in the United States.
I encourage my colleagues to support this bill, and, Mr.
Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Prepared Statement of Mr. Weber
Good morning. Thank you Chairman Smith for the opportunity
to speak on this critical legislation. I want to thank you and
Ranking Member Johnson for cosponsoring H.R. 4378, the Nuclear
Energy Research Infrastructure Act of 2017, and for y'all's
leadership in advocating for nuclear energy research and
development. I'm grateful for the opportunity to work alongside
my fellow Texans and the other members of this committee to
support research projects that will keep America safe and
globally competitive and encourage nuclear innovation.
Last Congress, this committee held hearings, met with
stakeholders and worked extensively with our colleagues in the
Senate to draft the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act.
This comprehensive, bipartisan authorization bill directed
the Department of Energy (DOE) to invest in supercomputing
capabilities, created a framework for DOE to partner with the
private sector to host prototype development for advanced
reactors and laid out a clear timeline and parameters for DOE
to complete a research reactor. This bill passed the House
three times last Congress, and passed the House again in
January as a part of the DOE Research and Innovation Act.
The research reactor, or Versatile Neutron Source,
authorized in that bill is crucial for the development of
advanced reactor designs, materials and nuclear fuels. This
type of research requires access to fast neutrons - which are
currently only available for civilian research in Russia. While
modeling and simulation can accelerate R&D, nuclear energy
research must be validated through a physical source, like a
research reactor.
Today, we will consider my bill to authorize specific
funding to build that research reactor. H.R. 4378 allocates
funds from within the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy for the
construction of the Versatile Neutron Source. This facility is
a reactor based, fast neutron source that will operate as an
open-access user facility in the DOE national lab system, and
will facilitate academic and proprietary research in the United
States.
Access to fast neutrons is a critical part of the
development of next generation materials and fuels for advanced
nuclear reactor technology. The Versatile Neutron
Source will also enable the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
to verify data on new fuels, materials and designs more
efficiently, expediting regulatory approval for advanced
nuclear reactors.
Without this user facility, this research simply will not
take place. We can't afford to lose the ability to develop
innovative nuclear technology, or rely on international
partners to develop safe and secure advanced reactors.
And as more developing nations look to nuclear energy to
grow their economies, America must maintain our nuclear
capabilities and continue to develop cutting edge technology
here at home.
This bill will also help maintain America's capability to
influence security and proliferation standards around the world
by maintaining cutting edge nuclear science. By building this
user facility, we will fortify the U.S. commitment to safely
advancing nuclear technology.
H.R. 4378 will authorize funding to construct this critical
user facility and ensure that we keep the best nuclear
scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs working in the United
States.
I encourage my colleagues to support this bill and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Weber.
And the gentlewoman from Texas and original cosponsor of
the legislation is recognized for her statement.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased
to cosponsor this bill with Congressman Weber. This legislation
marks another accomplishment in our continued collaboration to
advance nuclear energy innovation.
Nuclear power plays a vital role in providing our country
with clean, reliable energy, but they are current technical,
economic, and policy challenges that prevent nuclear energy
from playing a larger role in enabling our clean energy future.
This bill, the Nuclear Energy Research Infrastructure Act,
would help address these challenges. It expands on a provision
included in another bill that I cosponsored with Mr. Weber and
the Chairman, H.R. 431, the Nuclear Energy Innovation
Capabilities Act, which passed the House in January on a voice
vote as part of yet another bill that I cosponsored with these
two gentlemen, H.R. 589, the Department of Energy Research And
Innovation Act.
The bill we are considering today would provide the
Department of Energy the direction and funding it needs to
create a national user facility with critical capabilities to
advance nuclear technologies in America. I am hoping that if we
provide our scientists and industry leaders with the right
tools, they can fulfill the promise of clean nuclear energy
that is safer, less expensive, more efficient, and produces
less waste than the current fleet of reactors.
I'm also strongly supportive of the inclusion of the
explicit funding levels as part of this authorization.
Providing the Department and congressional appropriators with a
funding profile for research activities and projects is a
crucial responsibility in our role as an authorizing committee.
In particular, this helps to ensure that construction of
cutting-edge research facilities like this one has the
resources they need to be completed on time and on budget, thus
making sure that the U.S. taxpayers, who are footing these
bills, are getting the most value for their hard-earned
dollars.
I hope we can continue to include funding authorizations in
future bills passed out of this Committee, and I look forward
to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle as we
work to strengthen America's research enterprise across all of
our agencies. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill,
and I yield back the balance of time.
Prepared Statement of Ms. Johnson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to cosponsor this
bill with Congressman Weber.
This legislation marks another accomplishment in our
continued collaboration to advance nuclear energy innovation.
Nuclear power plays a vital role in providing our country
with clean, reliable energy. But there are currently technical,
economic, and policy challenges that prevent nuclear energy
from playing a larger role in enabling our clean energy future.
This bill, the Nuclear Energy Research Infrastructure Act,
would help address these challenges. It expands on a provision
included in another bill that I cosponsored with Mr. Weber and
the Chairman - H.R. 431, the Nuclear Energy Innovation
Capabilities Act - which passed the House in January on voice
vote as part of yet another bill that I cosponsored with these
two gentlemen - H.R. 589, the Department of Energy Research and
Innovation Act.
The bill we are considering today would provide the
Department of Energy the direction and funding it needs to
create a national user facility with critical capabilities to
advance nuclear technologies in America. I am hopeful that if
we provide our scientists and industry leaders with the right
tools, they can fulfill the promise of clean nuclear energy
that is safer, less expensive, more efficient, and produces
less waste than the current fleet of reactors.
I also strongly support the inclusion of explicit funding
levels as a part of this authorization. Providing the
Department and Congressional appropriators with a funding
profile for research activities and projects is a crucial
responsibility in our role as an authorizing committee. In
particular, this helps ensure that construction of cutting edge
research facilities like this one have the resources they need
to be completed on time and on budget, thus making sure that
the U.S. taxpayers who are footing these bills are getting the
most value for their hard-earned dollars.
I hope we can continue to include funding authorizations in
future bills passed out of the Committee and I look forward to
working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle as we
work to strengthen America's research enterprise across all of
our agencies.
I encourage my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
If there's no further amendments----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Smith. Yes. Who--the gentleman from California,
Mr. Rohrabacher, is recognized.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I just would like to make sure we go on
record when we're--and I support this legislation, but I'd like
to go on record that we do need to look into new approaches
when it comes to nuclear energy. For far too long we have been
relying on basically concepts and technology that were
developed 60 and 70 years ago. Light water reactors, while
they--I believe they've been successful in providing us a great
deal of electricity, they are inherently dangerous and, for
example, in the San Onofre nuclear power plant in Orange County
is now closed, and it's costing the taxpayers $70 million a
year simply to oversee that facility that's now closed because
the nuclear waste from those years is sitting right there.
Now, I would hope that the money that is--that we are
spending in this bill will not go to try to tweak light-water
reactors and build the same type of systems. Instead, we are
capable now of building small modular nuclear reactors that are
safe, that will--cannot melt down, will not leave plutonium
behind that can make bombs, and in fact will have a minimum of
any type of waste as compared to light-water reactors.
So as we move forward with this particular research project
that we're talking about right now, I would hope that we are on
the record as saying let's break some new ground. Let's open up
the new horizons instead of just trying to perfect the old
systems and improve them a little bit.
And we also have to understand--and I think nuclear energy
offers a tremendous source of clean energy as it has, but there
was a price to that in the past that if we do it right now, we
change this and go to a technology that we are capable of
building, we can really endow future generations of Americans
with clean energy that doesn't have the downside, which is the
dangers of radiation material.
By the way, the new reactors will be able to use the waste
from light-water reactors that are left over for their own fuel
to produce energy for future generations. It's win-win, but I
have seen a great hesitancy on the part of the industry to
commit themselves to this new approach to nuclear energy.
And I would just say this, that we also have to pay
attention in this Committee not only to the technology
development but understanding that the technology development
is step one, and I would sure hope that after we do develop new
sources of nuclear energy that we go into the licensing
procedures. We have been--there are so many restrictions now on
new technology, especially in the nuclear field, that it takes
decades to even think about it. And we were capable of building
the type of light-water reactors I'm talking about, Mr.
Chairman--we were capable of this 10, 15 years ago, and we've
gone nowhere on it because the licensing requirements are so
restrictive that it's holding back progress.
So with that said, I would support this legislation. I
think it's terrific that we have this type of bipartisan
approach to something that could well--and will if we succeed
and we will succeed at it--ensure that future generations of
Americans do have the type of wealth and--the wealth and the
other--and that clean environment and energy that is necessary
for people to have decent lives. Ordinary people in this
country deserve a decent life, and we are laying the foundation
for that today.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher, for those
comments.
If there are no further amendments, a reporting quorum
being present, I move that the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology report H.R. 4378 to the House with the
recommendation that the bill be approved.
The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 4378 to the
House.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, nay.
The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered reported
favorably.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon
the table. H.R. 4378 is ordered reported to the House.
I ask unanimous consent that staff be authorized to make
any necessary technical and conforming changes, and without
objection, so ordered.
H.R. 4375
Chairman Smith. Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R.
4375. We just didn't do that, did we--the STEM Research and
Education Effectiveness and Transparency Act. And the clerk
will report the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 4375, a bill to provide for study on
broadening participation on certain National Science Foundation
research and education programs, to collect data on Federal
research grants to science agencies, and for other purposes.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the bill is considered
as read and open for amendment at any point.
I'll now recognize the sponsor of the bill, Mrs. Comstock,
for her opening statement.
Mrs. Comstock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
H.R. 4375, the STEM Research and Education Effectiveness
and Transparency Act, contains two provision aimed at providing
better information on how to make taxpayer-funded investments
in STEM and research and development more effective,
transparent, and fair.
First, the bill requires the National Science Foundation
for the first time to report and make recommendations to
Congress regarding the effectiveness of its research and
education programs aimed at broadening the participation of
women and historically underrepresented individuals and
minorities in STEM. This report will give Congress, NSF, and
other stakeholders objective information about what kinds of
interventions and assistance are efficient, scalable, and
effective.
In order to have a vibrant economy that provides
opportunity and prosperity for all, we must be the leader in
STEM fields. To do that, we need to develop the talent of all
Americans. We cannot afford to leave anyone behind. This report
will help us focus resources on the best and most effective
methods.
Second, the bill requires all Federal science agencies to
collect standardized information, including demographics, for
each application received for research and development grants.
Agencies are to submit the information annually to NSF, which
is directed to publish an annual statistical summary. This
information will provide better transparency to how taxpayer
dollars are spent on research and scientists across the Federal
Government.
I want to thank Ranking Member Johnson for joining me in
sponsoring this bill and for her longtime commitment to
ensuring STEM opportunities and advancement for all.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your support as well, and I
yield back.
Prepared Statement of Mrs. Comstock
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4375, the STEM Research and Education
Effectiveness and Transparency Act, contains two provisions
aimed at providing better information on how to make taxpayer-
funded investments in STEM and research and development more
effective, transparent and fair. First, the bill requires the
National Science Foundation (NSF) - for the first time - to
report and make recommendations to Congress regarding the
effectiveness of its research and education programs aimed at
broadening the participation of women and historically
underrepresented individuals and minorities in STEM.
This report will give Congress, NSF and other stakeholders
objective information about what kinds of interventions and
assistance are efficient, scalable and effective.
In order to have a vibrant economy that provides
opportunity and prosperity for all, we must be the leader in
STEM fields. To do that, we need to develop the talent of all
Americans. We cannot afford to leave anyone behind. This report
will help us focus resources on the best and most effective
methods.
Second, the bill requires all federal science agencies to
collect standardized information, including demographics, for
each application received for research and developments grants.
Agencies are to submit the information annually to NSF, which
is directed to publish an annual statistical summary.
This information will provide better transparency to how
taxpayer dollars are spent on research and scientists across
the federal government.
I want to thank Ranking Member Johnson for joining me in
sponsoring this bill and for her longtime commitment to
ensuring STEM opportunities and advancements for all. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman, for your support as well.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mrs. Comstock.
And the Ranking Member, the gentlewoman from Texas and
original cosponsor of the legislation, is recognized for her
opening statement.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want
to thank Congresswoman Comstock for introducing H.R. 4375, the
STEM Research and Education Effectiveness Transparency Act. I'm
pleased to cosponsor this good legislation. H.R. 4375 is a
small but important step forward for addressing longstanding
gaps in achievement and participation in the sciences.
Research has shown that the observed shortages of women and
minorities in STEM fields are not due to the lack of interest.
To better understand the barriers faced by women and
underrepresented minority groups in STEM, researchers and
policymakers need access to better data on what really works to
improve the recruitment and retention of women and minorities
in STEM studies and careers. Importantly, we must also collect
data that would reveal any inequities that originate within the
Federal agencies themselves, even if unintentionally.
The bill directs the National Science Foundation to compile
and report on all available data on the effectiveness of its
portfolio of broadening participation programs. National
Science Foundation must also identify what additional data
would be needed to understand what makes programs effective. I
commend NSF on the strides it has taken in recent years to
accelerate its efforts to address the underrepresentation of
women and minorities in STEM, but we need to ensure that they
are producing results.
This bill also includes one provision from my STEM
Opportunities Act that requires all Federal science agencies to
collect and report annually on data for all research grant
applications and awards. These data are essential to uncovering
my inequities--any inequities in Federal funding for STEM
research and to developing smart policies to address the
implicit biases that are typically behind such inequities.
I continue to ask my good friend, Chairman Smith----
Chairman Smith. Yes.
Ms. Johnson [continuing]. My hero here, to take up the
entire----
Chairman Smith. Get that down in writing fast.
Ms. Johnson [continuing]. Of my STEM Opportunities Act,
which has been very well vetted by many experts, and I'm
encouraged by this first small step.
I will say that I started this when Ms.--when Congresswoman
Connie Morella and I did our first study on this Committee, and
I'm still pleading for the same goal.
Thank you and I yield back. Do this before you leave. Thank
you.
Prepared Statement of Ms. Johnson
I want to thank Chairwoman Comstock for introducing H.R.
4375, the STEM Research and Education Effectiveness
Transparency Act. I am pleased to cosponsor this good
legislation. H.R. 4375 is a small but important step forward
for addressing long-standing gaps in achievement and
participation in the sciences. Research has shown that the
observed shortages of women and minorities in STEM fields are
not due to a lack of interest. To better understand the
barriers faced by women and underrepresented minority groups in
STEM, researchers and policy-makers need access to better data
on what really works to improve the recruitment and retention
of women and minorities in STEM studies and careers.
Importantly, we must also collect data that would reveal any
inequities that originate within the federal agencies
themselves, even if unintentionally. The bill directs the
National Science Foundation to compile and report on all
available data on the effectiveness of its portfolio of
broadening participation programs. NSF must also identify what
additional data would be needed to understand what makes
programs effective. I commend NSF on the strides it has taken
in recent years to accelerate its efforts to address the
underrepresentation of women and minorities in STEM, but we
need to ensure they are producing results. This bill also
includes one provision from my STEM Opportunities Act that
requires all federal science agencies to collect and report
annually on data for all research grant applications and
awards. These data are essential to uncovering any inequities
in federal funding for STEM research, and to developing smart
policies to address the implicit biases that are typically
behind such inequities. I continue to ask my friend Chairman
Smith to take up the entirety of my STEM Opportunities Act,
which has been very well vetted by many experts. I am
encouraged by this first small step, so I won't give up. Thank
you, I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. We will renew our
efforts and take another look and give it a good-faith effort.
If there is no further discussion, a reporting quorum being
present, I move that the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology report H.R. 4375 to the House with the
recommendation that the bill be approved.
The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 4375 to the
House.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, nay.
The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered reported
favorably.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon
the table, and H.R. 4375 is ordered reported to the House.
I ask unanimous consent that the staff be authorized to
make any necessary technical and conforming changes. Without
objection, so ordered.
H.R. 4323
Next up, H.R. 4323. And pursuant to notice, I call up H.R.
4323, the Supporting Veterans in STEM Careers Act. And the
clerk will report the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 4323, a bill to promote veteran involvement
in STEM education, computer science, and scientific research,
and for other purposes.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the bill is considered
as read and open for amendment at any point.
I'll now recognize the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Dunn, for
his opening statement.
Mr. Dunn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
H.R. 4223, the Supporting Veterans in STEM Careers Act----
Chairman Smith. Wait a minute.
Mr. Dunn. Come back on. The Supporting Veterans in STEM
Careers Act is about helping expand veterans' job and education
opportunities in the sciences. The bill requires the National
Science Foundation to develop a veterans' outreach plan and
publish data on veterans' participation in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics fields in its annual indicators
report.
The bill also updates the NSF Noyce Teacher Scholarship
program, fellowship programs, and cyber grant programs to
include outreach to veterans.
Additionally, the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy is tasked with overseeing an interagency
working group examining how to increase veteran participation
in STEM career fields, including addressing any barriers to
servicemembers and their spouses.
In the next 5 years, between 1 and 1.5 million members of
the U.S. Armed Forces will leave the military according to the
DOD. Many of these veterans will be seeking new careers by--and
by a wide margin, veterans cite finding employment as their
number-one need when returning home.
According to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, occupations
in the STEM fields is projected to grow to more than 9 million
by 2020, an increase of a million jobs. Research shows that
many military veterans have skills and training that align with
STEM careers, particularly in information technology. However,
it also shows that veterans face many barriers as they reenter
the work force, including a lack of formal STEM education
career guidance and the difficult task of transferring military
credits to civilian college credits.
Our nation's veterans deserve every opportunity to
transition to a healthy and successful civilian life, and this
bill will help our servicemembers continue to serve our Nation
in new ways by filling 21st century jobs and keeping America on
the cutting edge of innovation.
I thank Mr. Takano, the Ranking Vice Chair of the Veterans
Affairs Committee that we both have the privilege to serve on,
for cosponsoring this bipartisan legislation. And I salute my
fellow veterans on the Committee who join me in introducing
this bill.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your support as well. I
urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back.
Prepared Statement of Mr. Dunn
H.R. 4223, the Supporting Veterans in STEM Careers Act, is
about helping expand veterans' job and education opportunities
in the sciences.
The bill requires the National Science Foundation (NSF) to
develop a veterans' outreach plan and publish data on veterans'
participation in science, technology, engineering and
mathematics (STEM) fields in its annual ``Indicators'' report.
The bill also updates the NSF Noyce Teacher Scholarship
program, fellowship programs and cyber grant programs to
include outreach to veterans.
Additionally, the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy is tasked with overseeing an interagency
working group to examine how to increase veteran participation
in STEM career fields, including addressing any barriers for
service members and their spouses.
In the next five years, between one and 1.5 million members
of the U.S. Armed Forces will leave the military, according to
the Department of Defense. Many of these veterans will be
seeking new careers; by a great margin, veterans cite finding
employment as their number one need when returning home.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics,
occupations in STEM is projected to grow to more than 9 million
between 2012 and 2022, an increase of about one million jobs.
Research shows that many military veterans have skills and
training that align with STEM careers, particularly in
information technology (IT). However, research also shows
veterans face many barriers as they re-enter the workforce,
including a lack of formal STEM education, career guidance and
the difficult task of transferring military credits to college
credits.
Our nation's veterans deserve every opportunity to
transition to a healthy and successful civilian life. This bill
will help our service members to continue to serve our nation
in new ways by filling 21st century jobs and keeping America on
the cutting edge of innovation.
I thank Mr. Takano, the Ranking Vice Chair of the Veterans
Affairs Committee that we both have the privilege to serve on,
for co-sponsoring this bipartisan legislation. And I salute my
fellow veterans on the committee who joined my in introducing
this bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your support as well.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Dunn.
And the gentleman from California, Mr. Takano, is
recognized.
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am pleased to offer my support for the bill being marked
up today, the Supporting Veterans STEM Careers Act. I'm proud
to offer this legislation with my colleague Mr. Dunn. And as
the Vice Ranking Member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, I
have seen firsthand both the difficulties veterans face trying
to further their education and the impact their experiences can
have on a variety of civilian fields.
I think everyone here agrees that we must find ways to
improve higher education for veterans and the benefit veterans
can have on the scientific and economic future of this country.
Our bill directs the National Science Foundation to develop
a plan to get more veterans into its STEM education and
research programs. In addition, it requires NSF to report
available data on veterans participating in STEM fields, both
the research and careers. NSF will also be required to seek
veterans out for existing NSF programs, including the Noyce
Teacher Scholarship program, and for cybersecurity-specific
education and training programs. This bill also creates an
interagency committee to help veterans and their spouses
transition into STEM careers, including annual reporting on
their progress.
For its part the NSF has been looking for ways to better
integrate veterans into STEM fields, and I applaud their work.
And I know all of us are looking forward to making more
progress in this effort, and I think our bill is an important
step forward. I think this is a great example of a win-win.
We--when we empower veterans to succeed, everyone benefits.
Thank you, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Takano.
And the Ranking Member, the gentlewoman from Texas, is
recognized for her statement.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Chairman.
I want to thank Mr. Dunn and Mr. Takano for introducing
H.R. 4323, the Supporting Veterans in STEM Careers Act.
Veterans are an experienced group of dedicated individuals
that far too long have remained a largely untapped source of
talent in our Nation's STEM work force. Projections from the
Bureau of Labor Statistics predict that work force needs in
STEM fields like computer science are outpacing our capacity to
educate and train students in the field. H.R. 4323 is a step
toward forestalling these projected gaps by leveraging a pool
of skilled veterans to strengthen our STEM work force.
I support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it
as well. I yield back the balance of my time.
Prepared Statement of Ms. Johnson
Thank you, Chairman Smith. I want to thank Mr. Dunn and Mr.
Takano for introducing H.R. 4323, the Supporting Veterans in
STEM Careers Act.
Veterans are an experienced group of dedicated individuals
that for far too long have remained a largely untapped source
of talent in our nation's STEM workforce. Projections from the
Bureau of Labor Statistics predict that workforce needs in STEM
fields like computer science are outpacing our capacity to
educate and train students in these fields.
H.R. 4323 is a step toward forestalling these projected
gaps by leveraging the pool of skilled veterans to strengthen
our STEM workforce.
I support this bill, and urge my colleagues to support it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
And the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is
recognized.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much. Just a few thoughts
when we're talking about this outreach to veterans that during
the second world war--right now, we recognize the great
contribution that Americans went overseas and fought for us,
not just the contributions they made in the fighting but now
it's recognized that that greatest generation came home and
built the American economy. America was never the same after
World War II because we had millions of men and women who now
were educated and--which we reached out to make sure they were
educated when they came back--and playing a very vital role in
our economy. That greatest generation--so we're thankful to
them not only for fighting the good fight overseas and
protecting our country but for what they did to build our
country afterwards.
While we have been at war now for 16 years, we are at war.
We've had people out and we still have to this day men and
women out with their lives on the line and it's disrupting
their life and moving--and putting themselves at risk for us.
They are making an enormous contribution like the World War II
generation. Their contribution will be a great--even greater
when they come home.
I believe that there's--that the veterans now, the
millions--and I believe it's probably about the same number of
veterans, but we have 16 years where they're spread out as the
number of veterans we had in World War II. I think they have a
major contribution to make to our country, and I really believe
that what we're doing in this type of thing at this type of
outreach reflects what we did with the World War II generation.
I want to make sure those men and women coming back from
overseas, and some of them disabled, that all of them have an
opportunity to make their contribution now and live good and
decent lives in an economy that will be as different 10 years
from now as our economy was 10 years after the second world
war.
So with those--with that thought, I want to thank you for
your leadership and the leadership of those in this Committee
who are taking part in this debate but also thought out this
idea of having the National Science Foundation outreach to
those brave men and women who are coming home. Thank you very
much.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
If there's no further discussion, a reporting quorum being
present, I move that the Committee on--I'm sorry, the
gentlewoman from Connecticut, Ms. Esty, is recognized.
Ms. Esty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As a fellow Member of both this Committee and the Veterans
Affairs Committee, I wanted to lend my support as well.
We know that we need to do right by our veterans. Too many
of our veterans are unemployed. They have a higher unemployment
rate than civilians. That's wrong and it's shameful. We have a
critical work force need in the STEM field and we have special
skills that our veterans bring. Mr. Rohrabacher mentioned that,
teambuilding skills, practical experience, and all of those we
actually need and would benefit from.
So I'm really delighted to join my fellow colleagues on
both House Veterans Affairs and this Committee Mr. Takano and
Mr. Dunn in supporting this legislation and encourage us to do
right by our veterans and do right for our country. Thank you
very much, and I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Esty.
If there's no further discussion, a reporting quorum being
present, I move that the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology report H.R. 4323 to the House with the
recommendation that the bill be approved.
The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 4323 to the
House.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, nay.
The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered reported
favorably.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon
the table, and H.R. 4323 is ordered reported to the House.
And I ask unanimous consent that staff be authorized to
make any necessary technical and conforming changes. Without
objection, so ordered.
H.R. 4254
Chairman Smith. Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R.
4254, the Women in Aerospace Education Act. And the clerk will
report the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 4254, a bill to amend the National Science
Foundation Authorization Act of 2002, to strengthen the
aerospace work force pipeline by the promotion of Robert Noyce
Teacher Scholarship program and National Aeronautics and Space
Administration internship and fellowship opportunities to
women, and for other purposes.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the bill is considered
as read and open for amendment at any point.
And the gentleman from California, Mr. Knight, is
recognized for an opening statement.
Mr. Knight. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is an important initiative to strengthen our aerospace
work force. H.R. 4253, the Women in Aerospace Education Act,
directs the National Science Foundation, through the Robert
Noyce Scholarship program and NASA to shape their fellowship
and internship opportunities to encourage more women to get
aerospace experience while they're training to be teachers.
Female aerospace professionals must be placed in the
classroom at greater numbers. A full 1/5 of U.S. aerospace
engineers are of retirement age today. They are beginning to
exit our work force, which would create an enormous shortfall
in our national security preparedness.
Meanwhile, women represent only about 1/4 of all STEM
workers and represent about 15 percent of all aerospace
engineers. We need to improve our STEM education pipeline from
ensuring STEM classes are available to students at a young age
to encourage young Americans to pursue STEM education all the
way through to the completion of their degree. But the gender
gap that is so prevalent in this industry will persist until we
make STEM and aerospace more inclusive of women and encourage
women at a young age to pursue these fields.
Attitudes about career paths are formed at a young age. The
role models and leaders from which women learn have an enormous
impact on future decisionmaking. I introduced the Women in
Aerospace Education Act to make better use of some of the
Federal Government's best teacher training programs to increase
the number of women teachers who have seen, worked on, and can
relate the Nation's leading aerospace programs to young female
students.
Robert Noyce scholars who get teacher certification
assistance from the National Science Foundation are already in
small numbers getting experience in NASA centers and the
national labs. Once they become certified and go to teach in
our K-12 system, they draw upon the work they have did--they
did on major public initiatives in science and technology.
Schools love having Noyce program teachers because their strong
positive attitudes about STEM are cultivated in their students.
It will strengthen our STEM pipeline to enhance the connection
between the Noyce Scholarship program and our schools.
The second provision of this bill directs NASA to more
actively promote its internship and fellowship opportunities to
women or members of other historically underrepresented groups.
Together, the two provisions of this bill will help make a
necessary and fundamental shift in our education system and
aerospace work force pipeline that will prove critical to our
national security in the long run.
I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. I'd
like to thank Ms. Esty for her partnership on this bill, and I
yield the remainder of my time.
Prepared Statement of Mr. Knight
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time to speak in support
of an important initiative to strengthening our aerospace
workforce.
H.R. 4253, the Women in Aerospace Education Act, directs
the National Science Foundation, through the Robert Noyce
Scholarship Program, and NASA to shape their fellowship and
internship opportunities to encourage more women to get
aerospace experience while they're training to be teachers.
Female aerospace professionals must be placed in the
classroom in greater numbers.
A full fifth of U.S. aerospace engineers are of retirement
age today. They are beginning to exit our workforce, which will
create an enormous shortfall in our national security
preparedness.
Meanwhile, women represent only about one-quarter of all
STEM workers and represent about 15 percent of all aerospace
engineers.
We need to improve our STEM education pipeline, from
ensuring STEM classes are available to students at a young age
to encouraging young Americans pursue STEM education all the
way through to the completion of their degree.
But the gender gap that is so prevalent in this industry
will persist until we make STEM and aerospace more inclusive of
women and encourage women at a young age to pursue these
fields.
Attitudes about career paths are formed at a young age.
The role models and leaders from which young women learn
have an enormous impact on future decision-making.
I introduced the Women in Aerospace Education Act to make
better use of some of the federal government's best teacher
training programs to increase the number of women teachers who
have seen, worked on and can relate the nation's leading
aerospace programs to young female students.
Robert Noyce scholars, who get teacher certification
assistance from the National Science Foundation, are already in
small numbers getting experience in NASA Centers and the
National Labs.
Once they become certified and go to teach in our K-12
system, they draw upon the work they did on major public
initiatives in science and technology. Schools love having
Noyce program teachers because their strong positive attitudes
about STEM are cultivated in their students.
It will strengthen our STEM pipeline to enhance the
connection between the Noyce scholarship program and our
schools.
The second provision of this bill directs NASA to more
actively promote its internship and fellowship opportunities to
women or members of other historically underrepresented groups.
Together, the two provisions of this bill will help make a
necessary and fundamental shift in our education system and
aerospace workforce pipeline that will prove critical to our
national security in the long run.
I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. I'd
like to thank Ms. Esty for her help on this bill and I yield
the remainder of my time.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Knight.
And the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Ms. Esty, is
recognized for her statement.
Ms. Esty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm proud to be
introducing this legislation with my colleague, Mr. Knight, and
I want to thank him for his work on this.
And, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for cosponsoring
this bill. And to my colleague Mrs. Comstock, we've worked
together on these bills for number of years and it's always
great to see more good bipartisan work out of this Committee.
One of our common goals on the Science Committee is to
inspire more young people and particularly more young women to
pursue careers in the sciences. And at this moment we have a
long way to go in the aerospace field. We're rapidly facing a
critical shortage of skilled aerospace workers. According to a
2015 aviation week work force study, 28 percent of the
aerospace work force is 56 years old or older, and nearly 1/5
of our aerospace engineers are now eligible for retirement, and
we simply cannot fill those positions unless we broaden and
deepen our pool of skilled workers.
Moreover, women represent only about 1/4 of all STEM
workers and represent only 15 percent of all aerospace
engineers, and that's why Representative Knight and I
introduced the Women in Aerospace Education Act, to address
both the critical work force needs and to bridge the gender gap
in the aerospace industry.
One of the key objectives of the Women in Aerospace
Education Act is to equip more women with well-rounded working
and learning experiences in aerospace engineering.
Specifically, the Women in Aerospace Education Act would
encourage universities applying for Noyce grants to incorporate
aerospace working and learning experiences at the national
laboratories and NASA centers for their fellowship programs.
Robert Noyce Teaching Scholarship grants are used by
universities to cover the cost of STEM-degree students who go
on to teach in rural or lower-income school districts.
Taking it a step further, our bill allows the National
Science Foundation director to prioritize proposals for Noyce
grants to provide female fellows with research experience in
aerospace engineering. These teachers will then enter the
classroom with firsthand knowledge of the impact aerospace
programs have on our lives and share their passion and their
inspiration with their students. It's proven, as my colleague
Mr. Knight mentioned, that girls who have women science
teachers are more likely to get interested in science.
Additionally, this bill directs NASA to prioritize the
recruitment of women and minority candidates to apply for
internships and fellowships at NASA.
I recently had a chance to visit United Technology
Corporation Aerospace Systems, UTAS, in Connecticut to learn
more about the ways Connecticut companies like UTAS and Ensign-
Bickford are supporting NASA's deep space exploration missions.
When I toured the facilities, I noticed that the engineers
working on the critical Orion components there were virtually
all men and virtually all in their late 40's and 50's. I met
Erica Abrahamson, a young woman who is the Deputy Program
Director for UTAS's portion of the Orion deep space project,
and she shared UTAS's concerns about the aging work force. She
and others at UTAS are looking down the line, and they know if
they don't diversify their work force, they'll have a major
shortage.
And we will never be able to retain our competitive edge in
science as a country or to meet critical STEM work force needs
unless we bring more women to the table. In Congress, we
recognize that need and we're taking steps to address it.
I want to thank my colleague, Congressman Knight, again for
his leadership on this bill on this important issue. I urge my
colleagues to support the Women in Aerospace Education Act, and
I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Esty.
And the gentlewoman from Texas, the Ranking Member, is
recognized for her statement.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank Mr. Knight and Ms. Esty for introducing
H.R. 4254, the Women in Aerospace Education Act. This year, we
saw NASA Astronaut Peggy Whitson break the record for
cumulative time spent in space by a U.S. astronaut. Dr. Whitson
is an inspiration for girls pursuing aerospace careers, but her
success is not entirely shared by women throughout the
aerospace sector. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that
in 2016 women made up only 8 percent of the aerospace
engineers. H.R. 4254 will help address the underrepresentation
of women in aerospace.
I strongly support the passage of this bill, and I urge my
colleagues to join me, as well as the rest of the Committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Prepared Statement of Ms. Johnson
Thank you, Chairman Smith. I want to thank Mr. Knight and
Ms. Esty for introducing H.R. 4254, the Women in Aerospace
Education Act.
This year we saw NASA astronaut Peggy Whitson break the
record for cumulative time spent in space by a U.S. astronaut.
Dr. Whitson is an inspiration for girls pursuing aerospace
careers, but her success is not widely shared by women
throughout the aerospace sector. The Bureau of Labor Statistics
reports that in 2016, women made up only 8 percent of aerospace
engineers. H.R. 4254 will help address the underrepresentation
of women in aerospace.
I strongly support passage of this bill, and I urge my
colleagues to support it as well.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
And the gentleman from California, Mr. Knight, is
recognized for the purpose of offering an amendment.
Mr. Knight. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Smith. And the clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 4254 offered by Mr. Knight of
California, amendment number 037, page 2, line 3----
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, and Mr. Knight is recognized to explain his
amendment.
Mr. Knight. Mr. Chairman, my amendment makes modifications
in response to feedback from the National Science Foundation
and the Committee. The amendment gives Noyce scholars who are
undergraduates and Noyce fellows who are working to obtain
their master's degrees the opportunity to pursue research
internships at NASA centers and national laboratories. These
Noyce scholars and fellows who go on to become teachers can
then take that experience back into the classroom and inspire
students to go into aerospace jobs.
I appreciate the National Science Foundation and the
Committee working with us on this bill. I urge the adoption of
this amendment and yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Knight. I recommend our
colleagues here support the amendment as well.
And is there anyone else who seeks to be recognized?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
All in favor, say aye.
All opposed, no.
The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
And if there are no further amendments, a reporting quorum
being present, I move that the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology report H.R. 4254 to the House, as amended, with the
recommendation that the bill be approved.
The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 4254 to the
House, as amended.
All in favor, say aye.
Opposed, nay.
The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered reported
favorably.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon
the table. H.R. 4254 is ordered reported to the House.
I ask unanimous consent that staff be authorized to make
any necessary technical and conforming changes. And without
objection, so ordered.
H.R. 3397
Chairman Smith. Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R.
3397, the Building Blocks of STEM Act. And the clerk will
report the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 3397, a bill to direct the National Science
Foundation to support STEM education research focused on early
childhood.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the bill is considered
as read and open for amendment at any point.
And I'll recognize the sponsor of the bill, Ms. Rosen, for
her opening statement.
Ms. Rosen. Thank you, Chairman Smith and Ranking Member
Johnson, for holding today's markup on several STEM education
bills, including one of mine, the Building Blocks of STEM Act.
I also want to thank my colleague from across the aisle, Steve
Knight, for collating this important legislation with me.
STEM and computer science are central to our country's
innovation, economic growth, and employment. In my home State
of Nevada and across the country we are continuing to see a
huge demand for workers in the tech industry, including
software developers, engineers, and computer programmers like
me. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, STEM jobs are
estimated to grow by 12 percent between now and 2024, faster
than all other occupations. Despite these increasing
opportunities in STEM careers, too few Americans possess the
education and skills necessary to succeed.
This disparity between computing and scientific talent and
demand begins back in elementary school. Studies have found
that children who engage in scientific activities from an early
age develop positive attitudes toward science and are more
likely to pursue STEM careers later on. In fact, interviews
with current graduate students and scientists found that the
majority of them reported that their interest in science began
before middle school.
The bill before us today, the Building Blocks of STEM Act,
will ensure that we're investing in our children as early as
possible by directing National Science Foundation to equitably
distribute funding across groups, including early childhood and
its Discovery Research Pre-K-12 program. While this program
seeks to enhance the learning and teaching of STEM, the
majority of its current research focuses on students in middle
school and older. My bill ensures that NSF focuses on engaging
our Nation's children in STEM education even younger.
I'm also grateful that the manager's amendment, introduced
by Subcommittee Chairwoman Barbara Comstock, will incorporate
into this legislation another STEM bill of mine, the Code Like
a Girl Act, which I introduced alongside Representative Elise
Stefanik and of which Mrs. Comstock is a cosponsor.
We all know the gender gap in STEM work force is widening,
particularly in computer science where women hold only about 26
percent of computing-relating--related occupations even though
we make up more than half of the work force. This gender
disparity extends down through all levels of education. In the
last few years, approximately 23 percent of AP computer science
exam takers were girls, and about only 18 percent of computer
science bachelor's degrees went to women.
Gender stereotypes begin at a very early age. Studies have
shown that around 6 years old girls develop the belief that
brilliance is a male characteristic, and this negative
stereotype is shown to have an immediate effect. The Code Like
a Girl Act addresses this issue by creating NSF grants to
increase understanding of the factors that contribute to the
participation of young girls 10 and under in STEM and computer
science activities, and this bill also creates a grant program
to develop and evaluate interventions in pre-K and elementary
school classrooms that seek to increase participation of young
girls in computer science.
By increasing the number of women in computer science
careers, we diversify the qualified pool that the United States
relies on for innovation. This will help us maintain our global
competitiveness and expand our economy. So we shouldn't deprive
our country of talented minds that could be working on our
Nation's most challenging problems, talented young minds that
could be inventing the next breakthrough technology, founding
future startups, and keeping our Nation safe from cyber
attacks. So for those reasons I am proud that my Code Like a
Girl Act is being included in the Building Blocks of STEM Act
and that we are one step closer to bridging our current gaps in
STEM education and work force training. I urge my colleagues to
support this legislation, and I yield back my time.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Rosen.
And the gentleman from California, Mr. Knight, is
recognized.
Mr. Knight. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I speak in support of H.R. 3397, a bipartisan bill that I
am proud to sponsor with Ms. Jacky Rosen. Investing in our
children and their future is always an opportunity for good.
Expanding the reach of our STEM education programs to children
of all ages will create a greater future in innovation.
Research shows that children at a very young age are capable of
absorbing STEM concepts, and any parent can tell you that
shortly after kids learn to talk, the questions can be endless.
Children have a natural curiosity that can be fostered into an
interest in science, technology, engineering, math, and
computer science.
The bill directs NSF to more equitably allocate funding for
research and studies that focus on early childhood, investing
in children early, ensuring we are laying the groundwork to
develop young innovators in STEM.
I want to thank Ms. Rosen for her work on this bill and
thank the Chairman for his support, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Knight.
And the gentlewoman from Texas, the Ranking Member, is
recognized for her statement.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Chairman Smith. I want to
thank Ms. Rosen and Mrs. Comstock for introducing 37--3397, the
Building Blocks of STEM Act. Ms. Rosen has been a champion for
increasing the participation of girls in computer science since
she joined the Science Committee, and I commend her for her
efforts.
A research article published in the journal Science earlier
this year revealed that girls begin to view intelligence as a
male trait as early as 6 years old. This attitude has a
profound impact on educational and career choices made by young
women. H.R. 3397 directs the National Science Foundation to
support research into factors that contribute to the early
adoption of these stereotypes and scalable models for
intervention to prevent or reverse the effects of these
negative and erroneous stereotypes. This legislation is good
for this Nation. I strongly support this bill and urge my
colleagues to support it as well.
I thank you and yield back the balance of my time.
Prepared Statement of Ms. Johnson
Thank you, Chairman Smith. I want to thank Ms. Rosen and
Ms. Comstock for introducing H.R. 3397, the Building Blocks of
STEM Act. Ms. Rosen has been a champion for increasing the
participation of girls in computer science since she joined the
Science Committee, and I commend her for her efforts. A
research article published in the journal Science earlier this
year revealed that girls begin to view intelligence as a male
trait as early as 6 years old. This attitude has a profound
impact on educational and career choices made by young women.
H.R. 3397 directs NSF to support research into factors that
contribute to the early adoption of these stereotypes and
scalable models for intervention to prevent or reverse the
effects of these negative and erroneous stereotypes.
I strongly support this bill and urge my colleagues to
support it.
I yield back the balance of my time
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
We have an amendment in the nature of a substitute to be
offered by Mrs. Comstock, and she is recognized for that
purpose.
Mrs. Comstock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment
at the desk.
Chairman Smith. And the clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3387 offered by Mrs. Comstock
of Virginia, amendment number 001. Strike all after the
enacting clause and insert the following.
Chairman Smith. The gentlewoman from Virginia is--continues
to be recognized.
Mrs. Comstock. This amendment adds two provisions to the
Building Blocks of STEM Act. The first is a section on
supporting girls in STEM education and computer science based
on legislation that I cosponsored with Mrs. Rosen earlier this
year, as was mentioned. The provision directs the National
Science Foundation to research the role of teachers and other
mentors in girls' perception of and participation in science.
I have seen firsthand the important role that mentors can
play in helping inspire young women through my own Young
Women's Leadership Program that I run in my district in the
summer and is important to learn how that impacts girls long-
term in STEM.
I was also pleased to be able to participate recently in a
coding program in a disadvantaged school in my district, and
you'll be happy to know that the kindergartners were doing
coding. They had a great little program that they had and
these--and the girls were in there and it's exactly--it's
coding like a girl right from kindergarten. It was really
exciting to see that.
The provision also directs NSF to develop scalable models
to increase young girls' participation. Although women fill
close to half of all jobs in the U.S. economy, they hold less
than 25 percent of all STEM jobs, so this obviously can start
changing this from kindergarten or even before.
Finally, the amendment includes a provision to add
informatics and computer science to the definition of STEM in
the Noyce Teacher program. Informatics, the science of
processing data for storage and retrieval, is one of the
fastest-growing STEM career fields. The Bureau of Labor
Statistics projects the number of health informatics
specialists to grow 15 percent by 2024, which is faster than
the projected job growth of all other U.S. professions. We need
teachers trained to understand this growing field and to
develop the next generation of workers.
Thank you, Mrs. Rosen, for working with us to come to
agreement on this language. Together, these provisions will
provide many building blocks for STEM, and I urge my colleagues
to support the amendment. And I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mrs. Comstock.
And is there any further discussion on the amendment?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the manager's
amendment.
All in favor, say aye.
Those opposed, no.
The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
If there are no further amendments, a reporting quorum
being present, I move that the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology report H.R. 3397 to the House, as amended, with the
recommendation that the bill be approved.
The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 3397 to the
House, as amended.
All those in favor, say aye.
It's getting weaker and weaker as we go along.
All opposed, no.
The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered reported
favorably.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon
the table. H.R. 3397 is ordered reported to the House.
I ask unanimous consent that staff be authorized to make
any necessary technical and conforming changes. Without
objection, so ordered.
Before we adjourn, I just want to thank all the Members who
have been here today and hesitate to single out any particular
group, but I will say we had almost full attendance looking to
my left today, and that was very much appreciated. And we still
have a number of people here as well. Looking to my right, we
have the author of the bill and two Texans, which is always a
good combination to have.
Ms. Johnson. They're back in the cloakroom.
Chairman Smith. Well, they're back in the cloakroom Ms.
Johnson says.
If there's no further discussion, that completes our
business. This concludes the markup today. Without objection,
we stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:21 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
H.R. 4376, H.R. 4377, H.R. 4378, H.R. 4375, H.R. 4323, H.R. 4254,
Amendment Roster, H.R. 3397, Amendment Roster
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE
MARKUP ON H.R. 4675,
LOW-DOSE RADIATION
RESEARCH ACT OF 2017
----------
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2018
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in
room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar
Smith [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Chairman Smith. The Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is
authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any time.
Pursuant to Committee rule 2(e) and House rule XI(2)(h)(4),
the Chair announces that he may postpone roll call votes.
Today, we meet to consider H.R. 4675, the Low Dose
Radiation Research Act of 2017. Pursuant to notice, I now call
up H.R. 4675, the Low Dose Radiation Research Act of 2017, and
the clerk will report the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 4675, a bill to amend the Energy Policy Act
of 2005 to provide for a Low Dose Radiation Basic Research
Program.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the bill is considered
as read and open for amendment at any point.
And I'll recognize myself for an opening statement.
H.R. 4675, the Low Dose Radiation Research Act of 2017 is
bipartisan legislation, and was introduced by Representatives
Roger Marshall, Dan Lipinski, Randy Weber, and myself. It
authorizes a revitalized Low Dose Radiation Research Program
within the Biological and Environmental Research Division of
Department of Energy's Office of Science. This research program
is part of the Science Committee's continued effort to ensure
America remains a leader in basic research and innovation.
H.R. 4675 directs DOE to identify ongoing challenges in low
dose radiation science and develop a long-term basic research
plan that addresses these challenges. It also directs the
Department to engage with other Federal agencies and the
international research community to develop the basic research
program. This program will analyze any unknown health impacts
of low levels of radiation, providing critical knowledge to our
Nation's researchers, industry, healthcare community and
military as they handle nuclear material, maintain the Nation's
nuclear weapons program, provide medical treatment, and dispose
of nuclear waste.
Low dose radiation research can also inform regulatory
agencies that set nuclear safety standards for the public,
including enabling Federal emergency response agencies to more
accurately set areas of evacuation for a radiological incident
like a nuclear power plant meltdown.
This research is also of particular importance to
practicing physicians, who rely on thorough knowledge of
radiation health risk to decide when and how to use lifesaving
diagnostics to detect and treat cancer in patients.
In the last Congress, this Committee explored DOE's ill-
advised decision to terminate its Low Dose Radiation Research
Program, which, until its closure in 2016, was one of the
largest and most effective programs of its kind in the world.
With so many questions left unanswered about the science of low
dose radiation, it is no surprise that closure of this crucial
basic research program was opposed by the scientific community.
In a hearing last fall, the Science Committee heard from
witnesses who strongly supported reprioritizing low dose
radiation research at DOE. This legislation has received
letters of support from the Health Physics Society, the
American Association of Physicists in Medicine, the National
Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, and leading
researchers from Northwestern University and Columbia
University. Congress must reprioritize basic research in low
dose radiation so we know we are using the best available
science to serve and maximize our Nation's energy, medical, and
defense needs.
Again, I thank the bill's primary sponsors, Representative
Marshall, Ranking Member Lipinski, and Chairman Weber, for
their initiative on this issue, and I urge my colleagues on the
Committee to support this legislation.
Prepared Statement of Chairman Smith
Today we will consider an important Energy Subcommittee
bill, H.R. 4675, the Low Dose Radiation Research Act of 2017.
This bipartisan legislation was introduced by
Representatives Roger Marshall, Dan Lipinksi, Randy Weber and
myself. It authorizes a revitalized low-dose radiation research
program within the Biological and Environmental Research
division of Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science.
This research program is part of the Science Committee's
continued effort to ensure America remains a leader in basic
research and innovation.
H.R. 4675 directs DOE to identify ongoing challenges in
low-dose radiation science and develop a long-term basic
research plan that addresses these challenges.
It also directs the department to engage with other federal
agencies and the international research community to develop
the basic research program.
This program will analyze any unknown health impacts of low
levels of radiation, providing critical knowledge to our
nation's researchers, industry, health care community and
military as they handle nuclear material, maintain the nation's
nuclear weapons program, provide medical treatment and dispose
of nuclear waste.
Low dose radiation research can also inform regulatory
agencies that set nuclear safety standards for the public,
including enabling federal emergency response agencies to more
accurately set areas of evacuation for a radiological incident
like a nuclear power plant meltdown.
This research is also of particular importance to
practicing physicians, who rely on thorough knowledge of
radiation health risks to decide when and how to use lifesaving
diagnostics to detect and treat cancer in patients.
In the last Congress, this committee explored DOE's ill-
advised decision to terminate its low dose radiation research
program, which, until its closure in 2016, was one of the
largest and most effective programs of its kind in the world.
With so many questions left unanswered about the science of low
dose radiation, it is no surprise that closure of this crucial
basic research program was opposed by the scientific community.
In a hearing last fall, the Science Committee heard from
witnesses who strongly supported reprioritizing low dose
radiation research at DOE. This legislation has received
letters of support from the Health Physics Society, the
American Association of Physicists in Medicine, the National
Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements and leading
researchers from Northwestern University and Columbia
University.
Congress must re-prioritize basic research in low dose
radiation so we know we are using the best available science to
serve and maximize our nation's energy, medical and defense
needs.
Again, I thank this bill's sponsors, Rep. Marshall, Ranking
Member Lipinski and Chairman Weber, for their initiative on
this issue and I urge my colleagues on the committee to support
this bipartisan bill.
Chairman Smith. The gentlewoman from Texas, Eddie Bernice
Johnson, the Ranking Member, is recognized for her opening
statement.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Chairman Smith, for
holding today's markup of H.R. 4675, the Low Dose Radiation
Research Program Act of 2017. This research is important to
better understand the health impacts of exposure to low dosages
of radiation that could result from medical tests, terrorism
events, or materials associated with nuclear weapons in power
production.
Since its inception in 1998, the Low Dose Radiation
Research Program at the Department of Energy had provided high-
value scientific data to help determine these risks. However,
its funding levels have been cut since 2012 as Obama
Administration informally expressed its intention to end the
program. And it was finally terminated last year. And thus far,
the Trump Administration has not indicated any interest in
restoring DOE's stewardship of these activities.
In November, GAO provided testimony before this Committee
is a recent report--on a recent report which recommended that
DOE lead the development of a plan for interagency
collaboration on research into low dose radiation's health
effects, citing a lack of coordination efforts among Federal
agencies as the Department began phasing out this program.
I believe that this bipartisan bill reflects GAO's findings
and recommendations, and I have sponsored and supported similar
legislative language in the past congresses. Therefore, I am
pleased to support H.R. 4675 as well and look forward to
working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as well
as the Administration, to restore the U.S. scientific
leadership in this critical area.
Thanks, and yield back the balance of my time.
Prepared Statement of Ms. Johnson
Thank you, Chairman Smith, for holding today's markup of
H.R. 4675, the Low-Dose Radiation Research Program Act of 2017.
This research is important to better understanding the
health impacts of exposure to low doses of radiation that could
result from medical tests, terrorism events, or materials
associated with nuclear weapons and power production.
Since its inception in 1998, the Low Dose Radiation
Research Program at the Department of Energy had provided high-
value scientific data to help determine these risks.
However, its funding levels have been cut since 2012, as
the Obama administration informally expressed its intention to
end the program, and it was finally terminated last year. And
thus far the Trump Administration also has not indicated any
interest in restoring DOE's stewardship of these activities.
In November, GAO provided testimony before this Committee
on a recent report which recommended that DOE lead the
development of a plan for interagency collaboration on research
into low dose radiation's health effects, citing a lack of
coordination efforts among federal agencies after the
Department began phasing out its program.
I believe that this bipartisan bill reflects GAO's findings
and recommendations, and I have sponsored and supported similar
legislative language in the past few Congresses.
Therefore I am pleased to support H.R. 4675 as well, as
look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle as well as the Administration to restore U.S. scientific
leadership in this critical area. Thank you Chairman Smith, and
I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
And the bill's sponsor, the gentleman from Kansas, Dr.
Marshall is recognized for his opening statement.
Mr. Marshall. Good morning, and thank you, Chairman Smith,
for the opportunity to speak on behalf of this important
legislation. I would also like to thank the Chairman, as well
as Representatives Dan Lipinski and Randy Weber, for
cosponsoring H.R. 4675, the Low Dose Radiation Research Act of
2017. I'm grateful for their leadership and their commitment to
biological and environmental science research and truly blessed
to work alongside the Members of this Committee that have
supported initiatives in basic science research to keep America
safe and globally competitive.
The Low Dose Radiation Research Act of 2017 requires the
Department of Energy to carry out a research program on low
dose radiation within the Office of Science. The bill directs
the Department of Energy to work with key Federal agencies and
research communities to develop a long-term strategic research
plan. This program will increase our understanding of the
health effects that low doses of ionizing radiation have on
biological systems.
Every day, humans are exposed to low doses of radiation. It
is the product of industrial activities, commercial processes,
medical procedures, and naturally occurring systems. Research
has consistently shown us the adverse health effects associated
with high doses of radiation, but the health risk associated
with exposure to low doses of radiation are much more difficult
to observe, and we are a long way from understanding and
accurately assessing those risks.
In the absence of conclusive evidence, agencies like the
Department of Energy, the Food and Drug Administration, and the
Environmental Protection Agency are obligated to assume that
any exposure to radiation increases the risk of harmful health
effects. Without proper research, agencies have no way to
measure if there is a safe radiation threshold.
Our restricted understanding of low dose radiation health
risks directly impacts our ability to address potential
radiological effects and medically based radiation exposures.
It may also result in overly stringent regulatory standards,
inhibiting the development of nuclear energy opportunities and
imposing an undue economic burden on the American people.
As a physician in my home State of Kansas, I've had a
firsthand understanding of the crucial importance of verified
research in ensuring the best medical outcomes for my patients.
For instance, an adult patient who receives a computed
tomography or CT scan of the torso is exposed to approximately
3 years' worth of background radiation at once. The CT scan is
an invaluable diagnostic, replacing many invasive surgical
procedures and is a medical necessity for countless Americans.
Today, we physicians are unable to inform our patients of the
specific health risk with these type of vital imaging
processes.
There is a broad consensus among the radiobiology community
that more research is necessary for Federal agencies,
physicians, and related experts to make better informed
decisions regarding these risks. It is no surprise that H.R.
4675 has received support from the Health Physics Society, the
American Association of Physicists in Medicine, the National
Council on Protection and Measurements, and leading researchers
from Northwestern University and Columbia University.
Once again, I'd like to thank Representative Dan Lipinski,
Chairman Lamar Smith, and Energy Subcommittee Chairman Randy
Weber for cosponsoring this important legislation. I encourage
my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Prepared Statement of Mr. Marshall
Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Smith, for the
opportunity to speak on behalf of this important legislation. I
would like to thank the chairman, as well as Representatives
Dan Lipinski and Randy Weber, for cosponsoring H.R. 4675, the
Low Dose Radiation Research Act of 2017. I am grateful for
their leadership and their commitment to biological and
environmental science research. And truly blessed to work
alongside the members of this committee that have supported
initiatives in basic science research to keep America safe and
globally competitive. The Low Dose Radiation Research Act of
2017 requires the Department of Energy to carry out a research
program on low dose radiation within the Office of Science.
This bill directs the Department of Energy to work with key
federal agencies and research communities to develop a long-
term strategic research plan. This program will increase our
understanding of the health effects that low doses of ionizing
radiation have on biological systems. Every day, humans are
exposed to low doses of radiation. It is the product of
industrial activities, commercial processes, medical procedures
and naturally occurring systems. Research has consistently
shown us the adverse health effects associated with high doses
of radiation. But the health risks associated with exposure to
low doses of radiation are much more difficult to observe, and
we are a long way away from understanding and accurately
assessing this risk.
In the absence of conclusive evidence, agencies like the
Department of Energy, the Food and Drug Administration and the
Environmental Protection Agency are obligated to assume that
any exposure to radiation increases the risk of harmful health
effects. Without proper research, agencies have no way to
measure if there is a safe radiation threshold. Our restricted
understanding of low-dose radiation health risks directly
impairs our ability to address potential radiological events
and medicallybased radiation exposures. It may also result in
overly stringent regulatory standards, inhibiting the
development of nuclear energy opportunities and posing an undue
economic burden on the American people.
As a physician in my home state of Kansas, I have a first-
hand understanding of the crucial importance of verified
research in ensuring the best medical outcomes for my patients.
For instance, an adult patient who receives a computed
tomography (or CT) scan of the torso, is exposed to
approximately three years' worth of background radiation at
once. The CT scan is an invaluable diagnostic tool, replacing
many invasive surgical procedures, and is a medical necessity
for countless Americans. Today, we physicians are unable to
inform our patients of the specific health risks associated
with these types of vital imaging processes.
There is broad consensus among the radiobiology community
that more research is necessary for federal agencies,
physicians and related experts to make betterinformed decisions
regarding these risks. It is no surprise that H.R. 4675 has
received support from the Health Physics Society, the American
Association of Physicists in Medicine, the National Council on
Radiation Protection and Measurements and leading researchers
from Northwestern University and Columbia University.
Once again, I would like to thank Representative Dan
Lipinski, Chairman Lamar Smith and Energy Subcommittee Chairman
Randy Weber for cosponsoring this important legislation.
I encourage my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Marshall.
And the gentleman from Illinois, the Ranking Member of the
Research and Technology Subcommittee and the other lead sponsor
of this legislation, is recognized.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you,
and I want to concur with your comments and Ranking Member
Johnson's comments. And I want to thank Mr. Marshall for
introducing this bill, and I'm pleased to join him as the lead
Democratic cosponsor of this bill.
Low dose radiation research is a critical field that can
provide important insights into the biological response of
cells to low levels of ionizing radiation. This research has
obvious potential impacts in the field of diagnostic medicine
but will also provide crucial information for nuclear energy
industry, environmental cleanup operations, and our national
security.
Almost 20 years ago, the Department of Energy began funding
research into low dose radiation. During the program's history,
DOE's research has resulted in a number of important
advancements in our understanding of cellular response to
radiation exposure. However, during the Obama Administration,
officials at the Department of Energy decided that this work
was no longer a priority and proposed to ramp down funding and
eventually eliminate this work.
Appropriators followed this recommendation, and without a
statutory authorization in place, the Low Dose Radiation
Research Program was eliminated. The current Administration did
not propose new funding for this research in Fiscal Year 2018
in their budget request, and we do not expect anything
different in the budget proposal we will see for 2019.
The process by which the Low Dose Radiation Research
Program was eliminated underscores the importance of this bill.
As an authorizing Committee, it is crucial that we hear from
the experts, consider the body of evidence, and determine the
priorities of the agencies that are under our jurisdiction.
That is our job.
In the last several years, a variety of stakeholders, as
well as the Government Accountability Office, have weighed in
on the need for this research. And our Committee has heard the
same in two hearings on this topic in the last 2 years. That's
why I'm happy to serve as the lead Democratic cosponsor of this
small but very important research bill.
I'm hopeful that during the next several months we can
follow the model we followed on this bill and pass other well-
vetted bipartisan bills out of this Committee. I encourage my
colleagues to support the bill and such continued efforts. And
thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski.
And the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Dunn, is recognized.
Mr. Dunn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking
Member Johnson. I want to thank all of you for convening this
meeting to take into consideration H.R. 4675, the Low Dose
Radiation Research Act of 2017.
I also want to congratulate my classmate and my friend Dr.
Marshall and his cosponsor Mr. Lipinski for investing the time
to produce this bill.
During the Committee's hearing on the subject, Dr. Brink
from the American College of Radiology testified that more than
a million patients a year receive the benefits of radiation
treatment, which include extended life and relief from pain and
suffering. Improving our scientific understanding of the
effects of exposure to low dose radiation will accelerate
development of advanced diagnostic and therapeutic procedures
and enhance the acceptance of controlled use of radiation among
patients and doctors, which will improve the quality of care
and save lives.
And this legislation like 4675 makes me optimistic for my
children and my grandchildren's future and why I'm honored to
serve on this Committee with all of you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Dunn.
If there's no further discussion, we will go to
amendments--and I'm aware of two--both to be offered by Mr.
Foster, and he is recognized for the purpose of offering the
first one.
Mr. Foster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at
the desk.
Chairman Smith. The clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 4675 offered by Mr. Foster of
Illinois, amendment number 74.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, and the gentleman from Illinois is
recognized to explain his amendment.
Mr. Foster. Thank you. My amendments would simply direct
the Secretary to identify and, to the extent possible, to
quantify the potential benefits to stakeholders of the Low Dose
Radiation Research Program and different components of it.
The research that comes out of this program will have a
number of uses across several agencies and sectors, including
the private sector and the public at large. For instance, if we
learn that astronauts could be safely exposed to slightly
higher levels of radiation, this could have potential cost-
saving implications for manned spaceship design or the reverse
is possible. To the extent that medical treatment and diagnosis
represents a tradeoff between radiation and health benefits,
then we can get to a more science-based position there.
Environmental remediation from radon in basements to the
cleanup of legacy sites, legacy weapons sites to the safety of
nuclear workers are other important examples where you have to
make sure that the research you're doing matches the actual
application in the real world. So an effort to quantify to the
extent possible these potential benefits is essential to
ensuring that the Low Dose Radiation Program properly
prioritizes questions with the greatest real-world impact.
The funding that we all hope will become available for this
program will not be infinite, and it's important that when the
program is restarted, that it is restarted especially in the
areas that will really, you know, make the world a safer and
less expensive place to live in.
So I'm pleased to see such strong bipartisan support and
join with my colleagues in supporting the reinstatement of a
Low Dose Research Radiation Program in DOE. I believe that my
amendment will help insure not only the best use of DOE's
limited resources but also the long-term success of the Low
Dose Radiation Research Program.
I understand that the Chairman supports this amendment and
will accept it, so I'd like to thank him and Ranking Member
Johnson for their support and yield back the balance of my
time.
Chairman Smith. And thank you, Mr. Foster. You're correct.
I'll recognize myself in support of the amendment.
The amendment would add a requirement that the Secretary of
Energy identify potential monetary and health-related benefits
that could occur through the results of the research program
authorized in this legislation. So this is a commonsense
amendment that seeks to show the value of continued investments
in basic research like the Low Dose Radiation Research Program.
I encourage Members to support the amendment.
Is there any further discussion on the amendment?
The Ranking Member Ms. Johnson is recognized.
Ms. Johnson. I'd like to move to strike the last word.
Chairman Smith. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I support this amendment and appreciate Dr. Foster's work
to improve the legislation we're considering today.
As we heard during the Committee hearing that took place in
November, research into low dose radiation can have far-
reaching impacts in a variety of industries and disciplines.
One of the key takeaways from that hearing is that the economic
and health benefits from this research are likely numerous but
unknown. I support this important addition to the program's
scope directing the Department to consider the potential
benefits to key stakeholders in government, academia, and
private industry, would provide helpful guidance to the program
and would ensure that the benefits of the research are well
recognized. And I encourage my colleagues to join me in
supporting the amendments, and I yield back.
Chairman Smith. OK. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
If there's no further discussion, the question is on
agreeing to the amendment.
All in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
The amendment is agreed to. And the gentleman is recognized
for purposes of offering the next amendment.
Mr. Foster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have another
amendment at the desk.
Chairman Smith. And the clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 4675 offered by Mr. Foster of
Illinois, amendment number 72.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, and the gentleman continues to be
recognized.
Mr. Foster. Thank you, Chairman Smith.
A few months ago, we held a Subcommittee hearing on the Low
Dose Radiation Research Program at the Department of Energy. It
was a very productive and bipartisan discussion, although I
remain disappointed that no one from the Department of Energy
was there to participate.
I join with my Republican colleagues in supporting the
reinstatement of the Low Dose Radiation Research Program at
DOE. I appreciate that this bill acknowledges the need to
formulate scientific goals for the low dose program and that it
instructs the Secretary to consult with and engage with other
Federal agencies. I believe this is key to ensuring the success
of a renewed effort on low dose radiation.
And given the bipartisan support for this program, however,
I was disappointed to see that the underlying bill expects the
Department of Energy to start this new research program with no
new funding. You know, it seems as though we used to have
bipartisan agreement in Congress that when we ask the
government to spend more money, that we would actually specify
how to pay for it rather than pushing the debt onto our
children, but it appears in recent times that that bipartisan
agreement seems to have vanished.
So my amendment today simply corrects this by increasing
the authorization for the BER program by the amount dictated in
the underlying bill. It's irresponsible, I believe, to direct
DOE to undertake new research--a new research program with no
new funding, and that would inevitably mean that another
valuable area of research within BER would suffer.
Now, I understand the Chair is opposed the amendment, and
as a courtesy to him, I will be withdrawing it, but I do hope
to work with my Republican colleagues to increase funding for
the BER program so that the Low Dose Radiation Program can be
properly funded.
Thank you, and I withdraw this amendment.
Chairman Smith. OK. Without objection, the amendment is
withdrawn. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for his
thoughtful comments and will continue to work with him on the
program.
Is there any further discussion or any more amendments to
be offered?
And if not, a reporting quorum being present, I move that
the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology report H.R.
4675 to the House as amended with the recommendation that the
bill be approved.
The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 4675 to the
House, as amended.
All those in favor, say aye.
And opposed, nay.
The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered reported
favorably.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon
the table, and H.R. 4675 is ordered reported to the House.
I ask unanimous consent that staff be authorized to make
any necessary technical and conforming changes. And without
objection, so ordered.
If there's no further discussion, that completes our
business. This concludes the Science Committee markup, and
without objection, we stand adjourned, but I also want to thank
all the Members who came today to this markup. It wasn't
expected to be long, but I always appreciate their presence. We
have three doctors present on our side, all of whom will have a
special interest in this bill as well, as does the gentleman
from Illinois, who has the Ph.D. in physics.
So we stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:25 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
H.R. 4675, Amendment Roster
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE
MARKUPS: H.R. 5345, AMERICAN
LEADERSHIP IN SPACE TECHNOLOGY
AND ADVANCED ROCKETRY ACT;
H.R. 5346, COMMERCIAL SPACE
SUPPORT VEHICLE ACT; AND
H.R. 5086, INNOVATIONS TO
ENTREPRENEURS ACT OF 2018
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 22, 2018
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:01 a.m., in
room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar
Smith [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Chairman Smith. The Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is
authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any time.
Pursuant to Committee rule 2(e) and House rule XI(2)(h)(4),
the Chair announces that he may postpone roll call votes.
Today, we meet to consider H.R. 5345, the American
Leadership in Space Technology and Advanced Rocketry Act; H.R.
5346, the Commercial Space Support Vehicle Act; and H.R. 5086,
the Innovators to Entrepreneurs Act of 2018. I'll recognize
myself for an opening statement. I appreciate the Members who
are here. We don't expect any amendments. All these bills are
bipartisan, so this should not take long. And my opening
statement is going to cover all three bills, so we'll try to
expedite in that way as well.
We are going--the third bill is sponsored by Representative
Lipinski, and we are going to wait for him to arrive when we
get to that third bill if he's not already here.
First, we will consider two space bills. Together, the two
bills help ensure that America remains competitive in space.
Both bills are the product of bipartisan consultation between
the majority and minority Members and staff. The first space
bill is H.R. 5345, the American Leadership in Space Technology
and Advanced Rocketry Act. This bipartisan legislation,
sponsored by Space Subcommittee Vice Chair Mo Brooks and
cosponsored by Ed Perlmutter, directs the Marshall Space Flight
Center to provide national leadership in rocket propulsion and
support the development of new and emerging technologies
related to rocket propulsion.
Rocket propulsion is the foundation for everything America
does in space from launching satellites that help us forecast
the weather and communicate around the world to exploration
missions that reach out far into the solar system and beyond.
The Marshall Space Flight Center's home of Huntsville, Alabama,
has been at the center of rocket propulsion since the
establishment of Army rocket research and development
activities at the Redstone Arsenal in 1950. Marshall's
expertise supports the national effort to keep our rocket
propulsion industrial base vibrant and healthy and ensures that
America stays at the forefront of rocket propulsion technology.
The next bill is H.R. 5346, the Commercial Space Support
Vehicle Act. This bipartisan legislation, sponsored by
Representative Bill Posey and cosponsored by Representative Al
Lawson, authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to license
hybrid launch vehicles to provide space support flights such as
crew and space flight participant training.
The Trump Administration, under the direction of the Vice
President and the National Space Council, has tasked the
Secretary of Transportation to reform commercial space launch
regulations by March 1, 2019. The bill instructs the
Transportation Secretary to consult with the commercial space
industry prior to issuing the notice of proposed rulemaking and
to issue space support vehicle licensing regulations by March
1, 2019. The intent of this provision is to make these new
commercial space support vehicle licenses part of the reform
effort.
I want to thank this bill's sponsor, Representative Bill
Posey, for his longstanding support of the commercial space
industry and for his persistence on this space commerce
regulatory reform effort.
The final bill is H.R. 5086, the Innovators to
Entrepreneurs Act. The bill extends the National Science
Foundation's Innovation Corps (I-Corps) program, which trains
and prepares scientists and engineers to convert their research
results into entrepreneurial opportunities. H.R. 5086 expands
who is eligible to participate in I-Corps courses, allowing
Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business
Technology Transfer grants to be used to cover I-Corps training
expenses. The bill also authorizes a new I-Corps course that
teaches skills, including company organization, attracting
investors, and hiring.
I thank Representative Dan Webster and Research and
Technology Subcommittee Ranking Member Dan Lipinski for their
work on this legislation.
Prepared Statement of Chairman Smith
Today we meet to consider three bills.
First, we will consider two space bills. Together, the two
bills help ensure that America remains competitive in space.
Both bills are the product of bipartisan consultation between
the majority and minority members and staff.
The first space bill is H.R. 5345, the American Leadership
in Space Technology and Advanced Rocketry Act. This bipartisan
legislation, sponsored by Space Subcommittee Vice Chair Mo
Brooks, and cosponsored by Rep. Ed Perlmutter, directs the
Marshall Space Flight Center to provide national leadership in
rocket propulsion and support the development of new and
emerging technologies related to rocket propulsion.
Rocket propulsion is the foundation for everything America
does in space from launching satellites that help us forecast
the weather and communicate around the world to exploration
missions that reach out far into the solar system and beyond.
The Marshall Space Flight Center's home of Huntsville, Alabama,
has been at the center of rocket propulsion since the
establishment of Army rocket research and development
activities at the Redstone Arsenal in 1950.
Marshall's expertise supports the national effort to keep
our rocket propulsion industrial base vibrant and healthy and
ensures that America stays at the forefront of rocket
propulsion technology.
The next bill is H.R. 5346, the Commercial Space Support
Vehicle Act. This bipartisan legislation, sponsored by Rep.
Bill Posey and cosponsored by Rep. Al Lawson, authorizes the
secretary of transportation to license hybrid launch vehicles
to provide space support flights such as crew and space flight
participant training.
The Trump administration, under the direction of the vice
president and the National Space Council, has tasked the
secretary of transportation to reform commercial space launch
regulations by March 1, 2019.
The bill instructs the transportation secretary to consult
with the commercial space industry prior to issuing the notice
of proposed rulemaking and to issue space support vehicle
licensing regulations by March 1, 2019.
The intent of this provision is to make these new
commercial space support vehicle licenses part of this reform
effort.
I want to thank this bill's sponsor, Rep. Bill Posey, for
his long-standing support of the commercial space industry and
for his persistence on this space commerce regulatory reform
effort.
The final bill is H.R. 5086, the Innovators to
Entrepreneurs Act. The bill extends the National Science
Foundation's Innovation Corps (I-Corps) program, which trains
and prepares scientists and engineers to convert their research
results into entrepreneurial opportunities.
H.R. 5086 expands who is eligible to participate in I-Corps
courses, allowing Small Business Innovation Research and Small
Business Technology Transfer grants to be used to cover I-Corps
training expenses.
The bill also authorizes a new I-Corps course that teaches
skills including company organization, attracting investors and
hiring.
I thank Rep. Daniel Webster and Research and Technology
Subcommittee Ranking Member Dan Lipinski for their work on this
legislation.
Chairman Smith. And that concludes my opening statement,
and the Ranking Member today, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
Lipinski, is recognized for his opening statement.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Chairman Smith, for holding
today's bipartisan markup. The first bill we're considering is
American Leadership in Space Technology and Advanced Rocketry
Act sponsored by Mr. Brooks.
This bill recognizes the rocket propulsion work of the
Marshall Space Flight Center. That work, as well as all the
other work that's carried out at our various NASA centers
around the country, is vital to American technological
advancement in aerospace, and it's worthwhile that we recognize
that.
I've had the opportunity to visit the--visit Marshall, and
it was very impressive. I'm glad that I've had the opportunity
to do that when I was down with Mr. Brooks a few years ago
holding a field hearing down there, so it was good to get to
experience that myself and all the work that they're doing
there.
Second, we will consider the Commercial Space Support
Vehicle Act introduced by Congressman Posey. This bill amends
existing law to provide the Secretary of Transportation with
authority to license or permit space support vehicles for space
support flights such as crew training or research and
development that are related to space launch or reentry.
I understand that the goal of these amendments is to
provide the industry with greater statutory clarity, as well as
to simplify the licensing process for commercial space
missions. To that end, I think we should get feedback from the
affected industry and make any appropriate adjustments to the
legislation before we move toward enactment.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, it is important that FAA's
Office of Commercial Space Transportation is sufficiently
resourced to accommodate any additional work so that the office
can continue to focus on its core responsibilities of licensing
and permitting commercial space launch and reentry vehicles.
The U.S. commercial space launch industry is really in a
resurgence right now, and we need to be doing what we can to
ensure that research continues.
And third, we are marking up--the bill we are marking up is
H.R. 5086, the bill that I introduced, the Innovators to
Entrepreneurs Act of 2018, which is cosponsored by Mr. Weber
and Ranking Member Johnson. This bill seeks to expand
participation in the National Science Foundation's highly
successful I-Corps program and to broaden the scope of
curriculum offered.
The I-Corps program helps increase the return on investment
to Federal R&D dollars in the form of increased jobs and
economic opportunity. And I'll say more about that when the
bill is brought up. But I want to thank the Chairman for--
especially on that bill--on my bill, bringing that up and being
willing to work with me on that. And I thank the Chairman for,
you know, all of these bipartisan bills that we are working on
here today, so thank you.
With that, I'll yield back.
Prepared Statement of Mr. Lipinski
Thank you Chairman Smith for holding today's bipartisan
markup. The first bill we are considering is the American
Leadership in Space Technology and Advanced Rocketry Act,
sponsored by Mr. Brooks. This bill recognizes the rocket
propulsion work of the Marshall Space Flight Center. That work,
as well as all the other work that is carried out at our
various NASA centers around the country, is vital to American
technological advancement in aerospace, and it is worthwhile to
recognize that.
Second, we will consider the Commercial Space Support
Vehicle Act, introduced by Congressman Posey. This bill amends
existing law to provide the Secretary of Transportation with
authority to license or permit space support vehicles for space
support flights, such as crew training or research and
development, that are related to space launch or reentry. I
understand that the goal of these amendments is to provide the
industry with greater statutory clarity, as well as to simplify
the licensing process for commercial space missions. To that
end, I think we should get feedback from the affected industry
and make any appropriate adjustments to the legislation before
we move towards enactment.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, it is important that FAA's
Office of Commercial Space Transportation is sufficiently
resourced to accommodate any additional work so that the Office
can continue to focus on its core responsibilities of licensing
and permitting commercial space launch and reentry vehicles.
The U.S. commercial space launch industry is really in a
resurgence right now, and we need to be doing what we can to
ensure that resurgence continues.
Third, the bill we are marking up is H.R. 5086, my
Innovators to Entrepreneurs Act of 2018, cosponsored by Mr.
Webster and Ranking Member Johnson. This bill seeks to expand
participation in the National Science Foundation's highly
successful I-Corps program and to broaden the scope of
curriculum offered. The I-Corps program helps increase the
return on investment to Federal R&D dollars in the form of
increased jobs and economic output.
Thank you for calling today's markup, and I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski.
H.R. 5345
Chairman Smith. And pursuant to notice, I call up H.R.
5345, the American Leadership in Space Technology and Advanced
Rocketry Act, and the clerk will report the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 5345, a bill to designate the Marshall
Space Flight Center of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration to provide leadership for the U.S. rocket
propulsion industrial base and for other purposes.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the bill is considered
as read and open for amendment at any point.
And the bill's sponsor, the gentleman from Alabama, Mr.
Brooks, is recognized for his opening statement.
Mr. Brooks. Take this opportunity to thank Chairman Smith
and Representative Perlmutter for the roles that they played in
allowing this bill to come up, and especially Representative
Perlmutter for agreeing to cosponsor it in a very bipartisan
fashion.
As the Congressman for the Tennessee Valley of north
Alabama, I appreciate and understand the unique and valuable
contribution that rocket propulsion has provided America.
On a more personal note, I very well remember growing up as
a young lad in Huntsville, Alabama, as the Saturn V rockets
were test-fired not far away. The earth would shake, the
windows would rattle, and the dishes would sometimes fall out
of the cabinets. I didn't understand the full meaning of that,
though, until 1969 when it was those rockets that allowed
America to be the first and only Nation to date that has been
able to send astronauts to the moon and successfully return
them.
The best way forward for the United States to maintain its
leadership position in space exploration utilization is to
support our Nation's work and investment in rocket propulsion
because rocket propulsion is the foundational capability for
everything we do in space.
By way of background, in my district the Marshall Space
Flight Center provides expertise in solid and liquid rocket
propulsion, as well as advanced rocket propulsion technology to
enable a wide array of future activity in space.
Over the last several years, America has witnessed the
beginnings of a resurgence in the rocket propulsion industry.
As these traditional and emerging actors continue to move
forward, it is important that we support healthy cooperation
and communication between these companies and the Federal
Government to ensure that America maintains a robust and
healthy rocket propulsion industry.
As this Committee continues its work to guide our national
space policy, we must ensure a strong foundation and bold
leadership in rocket propulsion, a robust industrial base that
can develop and capitalize on better rocket propulsion
technology. Therefore, I have introduced the American
Leadership in Space Technology and Advanced Rocketry Act of
2018, also known as the ALSTAR Act.
At this point, let me read two paragraphs from the act that
pretty well summarize the intent of this legislation. In
effect, ALSTAR formalizes and preserves the Marshall Space
Flight Center's historical role in rocket propulsion. Quoting
from the act, ``It is the sense of Congress that the Marshall
Space Flight Center is the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration's lead center for rocket propulsion and
essential to sustaining and promoting U.S. leadership in rocket
propulsion and developing the next generation of rocket
propulsion capabilities. The Marshall Space Flight Center shall
provide national leadership in rocket propulsion,'' thereafter
listing a number of ways in which the Marshall Space Flight
Center is to do that.
This bill helps to ensure the long-term stability of the
rocket propulsion industry through better coordination and
collaboration between all relevant stakeholders, Federal and
private. This bill also directs Marshall to explore, develop,
and mature new rocket propulsion technology in cooperation with
partners across and outside of government. This new growth,
while building on a strong foundation, will ensure that America
remains at the forefront of space exploration.
NASA must once again challenge itself to reach far beyond
its limits. Through attention, focus, and support of the
utilization of space and the exploration of deep space, we will
be able to once again inspire the next generation to look to
the starts and aspire to do the impossible.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Brooks.
Does the--I am glad to see that the cosponsor of the
legislation seeks to be recognized. We want him to be on the
record. And the gentleman is so recognized.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank
Mr. Brooks for bringing this piece of legislation. And I wanted
to support this legislation and cosponsor it because
Huntsville, the Marshall Space Center, is one of 10 centers
that NASA uses to make sure that we're preeminent in the space
program and that we will get our astronauts out there, we will
get our robots out into outer space. We will explore.
And the historic role that Huntsville has played in the
space program is its current role and now will be its future
role, to be at the center of getting our space program into
outer space, pretty simple, but I wanted to encourage this
network that we have that is really second to none in the
world, and we've got to keep it that way.
So, for me, cosponsoring this bill was very easy. It is
something that I think will remind people, whether they're in
Alabama or Colorado or California, that this is important to
America, that our role and our willingness to explore and get
our capsules and our people into outer space is key. And
Huntsville plays a critical role in that, and that's why I
support this bill.
And I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Perlmutter.
If there's no further discussion, a reporting quorum being
present, I move that the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology report H.R. 5345 to the House with the
recommendation that the bill be approved.
The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 5345 to the
House.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, nay.
The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered reported
favorably.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon
the table. Congratulations to you all.
H.R. 5346
Chairman Smith. Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R.
5346, the Commercial Space Support Vehicle Act, and the clerk
will report the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 5346, a bill to amend title 51, United
States Code, to provide for licenses and experimental permits
for space support vehicles and for other purposes.
Chairman Smith. And without objection, the bill is
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
And the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Posey, is recognized
for his statement.
Mr. Posey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I want to
first and foremost thank the staff for their diligence in
perfecting this legislation that we need.
A GAO report last year recommended that the Federal
Aviation Administration examine its current regulatory
framework for space support vehicles and suggest legislative or
regulatory changes as applicable. The Commercial Space Vehicle
Support Act was largely developed with input from the
Department of Transportation report on the permitting process
of hybrid launch vehicles to enable non-launch flight
operations. NASA has used them for years to conduct parabolic
experiments where they go up and down and do the gravity-
sensitivity checks that they want. It's much cheaper to use an
F-104 than it is to launch a rocket costing millions of dollars
to do those kind of experiments.
The Department of Transportation report concluded that the
option of having a single statutory regime and regulatory
office oversee a demonstrated commercial space program
throughout its operational lifecycle would allow consistent
application of regulatory philosophy and safety oversight and
be more efficient and cost-effective for the launch operator,
as well as the licensing agency.
The Commercial Space Support Vehicle Act provides an
appropriate regulatory approach by authorizing the Secretary of
Transportation to develop regulations by March 1, 2019,
allowing license space support flights.
I'd like to ask unanimous consent to include in the record
a letter of support from Virgin Galactic for H.R. 5346, the
Commercial Space Support Vehicle Act.
Chairman Smith. OK. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Posey. As mentioned by Chairman Smith and the Ranking
Member Lipinski, the intent is to include the development of
regulations in the regulatory reform process that the Vice
President and the National Space Council tasks the Federal
Aviation Administration to comply by the date previously
mentioned. I thank you very much and yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Posey.
If there is no further discussion, a reporting quorum being
present, I move that the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology report H.R. 5346 to the House with the
recommendation that the bill be approved.
The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 5346 to the
House.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, say nay.
The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered reported--
ordered--is ordered reported favorably.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon
the table.
H.R. 5086
Chairman Smith. Pursuant to notice, we call up H.R. 5086,
the Innovators to Entrepreneurs Act of 2018. And the clerk will
report the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 5086, a bill to require the Director of the
National Science Foundation to develop an I-Corps course to
support commercialization-ready innovation companies and for
other purposes.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the bill is considered
as read and open for amendment at any point.
And we will now recognize the bill's sponsor, the gentleman
from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski, for his statement.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As you and Members of this Committee are aware, I've been
the leading advocate--putting it mildly--for the National
Science Foundation Innovation Corps or I-Corps program since
its inception. I led the legislative effort that authorized I-
Corps as part of the American Innovation and Competitiveness
Act that became law at the end of the last Congress.
The I-Corps program offers valuable entrepreneurial
education primarily to scientists and engineers who are college
research faculty, graduate students, and postdoctoral fellows.
The purpose is to help these individuals develop new,
innovative products from the world-class research they conduct
in their labs. The program has had tremendous success at NSF
and has been expanded to other agencies, including DOE, NIH,
DOD, USDA, and DHS. It has helped create new entrepreneurs and
new tech jobs and is helping Federal taxpayers get the most out
of their investment in research.
The I-Corps program has been successful in part due to its
focus on providing education and mentoring tailored to the
needs of entrepreneurs at their particular business stage. To
date, that focus has been on the point at which they're first
attempting to create a product based on research they've
conducted in the lab, but different types of support are needed
at later States as the entrepreneur forms a company and
progresses toward introducing the product to market.
Currently, once a team completes an I-Corps course and
decides to take their innovation to market, they must learn how
to form and grow a company on their own. Many scientists and
engineers are struggling to acquire the necessary skills, and
as a result, too many early stage companies are failing.
To address this, NSF has piloted a course called I-Corps Go
to teach skills like selecting a company structure, attracting
investors and hiring a team. Due to the popularity and early
success of this course, this bill aims to make it a formal
component of the I-Corps program to be offered nationwide.
This bill also aims to expand participation in I-Corps
without a significant increase in funding. Although I'd support
increasing the NSF's funding in general and I-Corps funding in
particular, at the Chairman's request, I am moving this bill
forward with only a small authorization. The way this bill will
increase participation is to allow any small business
innovation research or small business technology transfer
research grantee from any Federal agency to use their grant
funds to participate in I-Corps. The bill also allows private
citizens and entities to pay out of pocket to participate.
Increased access to and participation in I-Corps will ensure
that more American innovators have access to high-quality
entrepreneurial education.
The final provision of this bill is to require a Government
Accountability Office report on the I-Corps program. Although
NSF submits periodic reports about the program to Congress, to
date, there has not been an independent review of its
performance.
I fully support I-Corps and continue to be amazed by its
success, but as with any taxpayer-funded program, I also
support independent auditing to help us learn how to improve
the program. The Federal Government invests billions of dollars
in research and development annually. I-Corps is a modest
investment that leads to a big return on federally funded
research by significantly increasing rates of research
commercialization, economic activity, and job creation.
Just as the creation of I-Corps program addressed an unmet
need and helped scientists entrepreneurs bring their ideas
closer to market, the Innovators to Entrepreneurs Act will fill
an additional skills gap and empower more aspiring job creators
to access the private capital they need to be commercially
successful.
I want to thank Mr. Webster and Ranking Member Johnson for
their support and co-sponsorship of this bill. I also thank
Chairman Smith for holding an I-Corps hearing this past
December and for bringing up this bipartisan bill for a markup.
The I-Corps program has been one of the most remarkable,
maybe the most remarkable program that I have seen in my time
here in Congress for what it's been able to do to tap into the
great research that is being done at our--you know, at our
research universities, also starting to reach into the national
labs, and it really does a great job of helping to really take
those great innovators that we have, the great researchers that
we have, teach them how to be entrepreneurs. It's been very
successful. It helps to bring back a good return on taxpayer
dollars and create jobs, and it's something that we all support
and we all want, and I encourage all my colleagues to vote in
favor.
And I'll yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski.
And the gentleman from Florida, the cosponsor of the
legislation, Mr. Webster, is recognized for his statement.
Mr. Webster. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for allowing us to be able to come forward. I thank my friend
Mr. Lipinski for filing this. He's certainly known as a
champion of I-Corps and maybe the champion of I-Corps, so I'm
very appreciative of that.
This is a great piece of legislation, as the sponsor has
said. The idea of helping the scientists and engineers and
others who develop products, getting them to market is an
important thing because you can have a product, but if you
don't sell it, it doesn't really do anybody any good.
So through marketing and hiring and organizing and
attracting investors and so forth, the participants in these I-
Corps groups have a better chance of being successful, and
that's the whole idea. I've seen in Florida what a great
program it is, and it has greatly benefited our State, and I
know it has in the rest of the country. There have just been
barriers, barriers that could not be penetrated. You couldn't
get through. This bill is going to help break down those
barriers so that those who are developing their product can
also get them to market.
So I would certainly urge everyone on this Committee to
vote for this great bipartisan bill. I think it's going to be
one of the most commonsense bills passed by this Congress.
Chairman Smith. That's high praise. Thank you, Mr. Webster.
I appreciate your comments.
If there is no further discussion, a reporting quorum being
present, I move that the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology report H.R. 5086 to the House with a recommendation
that the bill be approved.
The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 5086 to the
House.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, nay.
The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered reported
favorably.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon
the table.
Before we officially adjourn, I think it might be of
interest to Members to know that of the 25 bills that we have--
that this Committee has taken to the House floor, 23 of the 25
have been bipartisan bills, and that's got to be some kind of
record.
If there's no further discussion, that completes our
business, and this concludes the Science Committee markup.
Without objection, the Committee stands adjourned, and thank
you all again for your attendance.
[Whereupon, at 9:26 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
H.R. 5345, H.R. 5346, H.R. 5086
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
------
COMMITTEE MARKUPS OF H.R. 1224,
H.R. 1430, H.R. 1431, H.R. 2105, H.R. 2809,
H.R. 2763, H.R. 1159, H.R. 4376, H.R. 4377,
H.R. 4378, H.R. 4375, H.R. 4323, H.R. 4254,
H.R. 3397, H.R. 4675, H.R. 5345, H.R. 5346,
H.R. 5086, H.R. 5509, H.R. 5503, H.R. 5905,
H.R. 5907, H.R. 5906, H.R. 6227, H.R. 6229,
H.R. 6226, H.R. 6398, S. 141, AND H.R. 6468
=======================================================================
COMPILATION OF MARKUPS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS
----------
2017-2018
----------
Serial No. CP: 115-1
----------
Volume 2
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
COMPILATION OF MARKUPS, VOLUME 2
COMMITTEE MARKUPS OF H.R. 1224,
H.R. 1430, H.R. 1431, H.R. 2105, H.R. 2809,
H.R. 2763, H.R. 1159, H.R. 4376, H.R. 4377,
H.R. 4378, H.R. 4375, H.R. 4323, H.R. 4254,
H.R. 3397, H.R. 4675, H.R. 5345, H.R. 5346,
H.R. 5086, H.R. 5509, H.R. 5503, H.R. 5905,
H.R. 5907, H.R. 5906, H.R. 6227, H.R. 6229,
H.R. 6226, H.R. 6398, S. 141, AND H.R. 6468
=======================================================================
COMPILATION OF MARKUPS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS
__________
2017-2018
__________
Serial No. CP: 115-1
__________
Volume 2
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
35-710 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DANA ROHRABACHER, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
BILL POSEY, Florida AMI BERA, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
STEPHEN KNIGHT, California DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
BRIAN BABIN, Texas JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia JERRY McNERNEY, California
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
GARY PALMER, Alabama PAUL TONKO, New York
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida BILL FOSTER, Illinois
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona MARK TAKANO, California
ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana
RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
------
Subcommittee on Energy
HON. HON. RANDY K. WEBER, Texas, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma ZOE LOFGREN, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky JERRY MCNERNEY, California
STEPHEN KNIGHT, California PAUL TONKO, New York
GARY PALMER, Alabama BILL FOSTER, Illinois
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida MARK TAKANO, California
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
------
Subcommittee on Environment
HON. JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma, Chair
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
Wisconsin DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
RANDY WEBER, Texas AMI BERA, California
JOHN MOOLENAAR, Michigan MARK TAKANO, California
BRIAN BABIN, Texas BILL FOSTER, Illinois
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
GARY PALMER, Alabama
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
(ii)
Subcommittee on Oversight
HON. RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana, Chair
BILL POSEY, Florida DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky JERRY MCNERNEY, California
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana
RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
_________________________________________________________________
Subcommittee on Research and Technology
HON. BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia, Chair
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
STEPHEN KNIGHT, California JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida AMI BERA, California
ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
_____________________________________________________________
Subcommittee on Space
HON. BRIAN BABIN, Texas, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma AMI BERA, California
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama, ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
BILL POSEY, Florida MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
STEVE KNIGHT, California
Brian Babin, Texas
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
(iii)
C O N T E N T S
2017- 2018
Page
H.R. 5509--Innovations in Mentoring, Training, and
Apprenticeships Act
Proceedings of the markup held by the Full Committee, April
17, 2018................................................... 443
H.R. 5503--National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Authorization
Act of 2018
Proceedings of the markup held by the Full Committee, April
17, 2018................................................... 452
H.R. 5905--Department of Energy Science and Innovation Act of
2018
Proceedings of the markup held by the Full Committee, May 23,
2018....................................................... 595
H.R. 5907--National Innovation Modernization by Laboratory
Empowerment Act
Proceedings of the markup held by the Full Committee, May 23,
2018....................................................... 606
H.R. 5906--ARPA-E Act of 2018
Proceedings of the markup held by the Full Committee, May 23,
2018....................................................... 608
H.R. 6227--National Quantum Initiative Act
Proceedings of the markup held by the Full Committee, June
27, 2018................................................... 687
H.R. 6229--National Institute of Standards and Technology
Reauthorization Act of 2018
Proceedings of the markup held by the Full Committee, June
27, 2018................................................... 698
H.R. 6226--American Space SAFE Management Act
Proceedings of the markup held by the Full Committee, June
27, 2018................................................... 704
H.R. 6398--Department of Energy Veterans' Health Initiative Act
Proceedings of the markup held by the Full Committee, July
18, 2018................................................... 789
S. 141--Space Weather Research and Forecasting Act
Proceedings of the markup held by the Full Committee, July
24, 2018................................................... 811
H.R. 6468--Improving Science in Chemical Assessments Act
Proceedings of the markup held by the Full Committee, July
24, 2018................................................... 835
(iv)
PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE
MARKUPS: H.R. 5509, INNOVATIONS
IN MENTORING, TRAINING, AND
APPRENTICESHIPS ACT;
AND H.R. 5503, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS
AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2018
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 2018
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in
room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar
Smith [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Chairman Smith. The Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is
authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any time.
Pursuant to Committee rule 2(e) and House rule XI(2)(h)(4),
the Chair announces that he may postpone roll call votes.
Today, we meet to consider H.R. 5509, the Innovations in
Mentoring, Training, and Apprenticeships Act; and H.R. 5503,
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization
Act of 2018.
H.R. 5509
Chairman Smith. Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R.
5509, the Innovations in Mentoring, Training, and
Apprenticeships Act. And the clerk will report the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 5509, a bill to direct the National Science
Foundation to provide grants for research about STEM education
approaches and the STEM-related work force and for other
purposes.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the bill is considered
as read and open for amendment at any point.
And I'll recognize myself for an opening statement.
Before I do so, I appreciate the good attendance we have
this morning, and I want to introduce our newest and youngest
member of the staff, and that is Mark Marin's youngest daughter
sitting behind me, Alden, almost age 10. And we appreciate
Alden's being here.
And I should warn everybody in the room that if crowd
control is required, Alden is going to wield the gavel. So
we're happy to have her here.
And again, I'll go back to my opening statement.
This morning, the Committee will consider H.R. 5509, the
Innovations in Mentoring, Training, and Apprenticeships Act.
This legislation was introduced by Majority Leader McCarthy. I
and Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson have cosponsored this
measure, and I hope others will, too.
H.R. 5509 is the product of a hearing held by the Research
and Technology Subcommittee in February. Members and witnesses
discussed innovative work force training approaches aimed at
boosting STEM education and careers in order to meet current
and future STEM professional and technical work force needs. A
special thanks to Chairwoman Comstock and Ranking Member
Lipinski for holding that hearing.
Meeting our growing work force needs in all areas of
science and technology is essential for our economic
competitiveness. For instance, according to a recent study,
there will be a need for 3.5 million skilled manufacturing
workers over the next decade. But it is anticipated that 2
million of those jobs will go to--go unfilled unless we recruit
and educate a whole host of high-skilled manufacturing workers.
H.R. 5509 continues the bipartisan progress this Committee
has made to improve and expand science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics. We extended the program's
educational programs and created new pathways to STEM careers.
Research shows that direct knowledge and hands-on work
experience with STEM occupations and opportunities stimulate
interests in STEM studies and careers among students at every
level. To this end, H.R. 5509 directs the National Science
Foundation to fund initiatives that support innovative
partnerships between academic institutions and local
industries.
The NSF is to offer at least $5 million per year over the
next 4 years for competitively awarded grants to community
colleges to develop new STEM courses and degrees. These
programs will combine formal education with on-the-job work
experiences, such as apprenticeships and internships, by
partnering with local employers. The bill also requires at
least $2.5 million per year over the next 4 years for the NSF
to award research grants to measure student outcomes and the
effectiveness of computer-based and online courses for
technical skills training.
Successful work force development programs extend beyond
the four walls of classrooms and laboratories. One primary
example is at Wichita State University, which Mr. Marshall and
I visited last year. During his testimony, Dr. John Bardo, the
President of Wichita State University, discussed the
university's testing of its applied learning initiative. The
university found that, on average, newly graduated engineers
take 2 years to contribute to the bottom line for their
employers. However, when Wichita State University students were
given an opportunity to participate in an apprenticeship
program prior to graduation, that timeline to profitability was
cut from 2 years to 6 months.
The pending legislation directs the NSF to award at least
another $2.5 million per year for the next 4 years for
universities to partner with local employers and offer paid
apprenticeships and other applied learning experiences to STEM
students.
Not only can we learn from successful programs here in the
United States, it is also important to examine how other
developed nations address their skilled technical work force
needs. This bill directs the NSF to commission research that
compares and contrasts skilled technical work force development
between the United States and other developed nations and to
report the results to Congress.
H.R. 5509 requires the National Science Foundation to
conduct research to improve the efficiency of the skilled
technical labor markets and examine the skilled technical work
force to have a clear understanding of work force trends and
needs. The Innovations in Mentoring, Training, and
Apprenticeships Act, H.R. 5509, is a significant step in the
right direction toward ensuring the United States'
competitiveness in the global economy of today. The initiatives
in this legislation will leverage the hard work and ingenuity
of women and men of all ages, education levels, and backgrounds
to grow and meet the demand for a STEM-capable work force, so I
encourage my colleagues to support this bill.
Prepared Statement of Chairman Smith
This morning the committee will consider H.R. 5509, the
Innovations in Mentoring, Training, and Apprenticeships Act.
This legislation was introduced by Majority Leader McCarthy. I
have cosponsored this measure and I hope others will too.
H.R. 5509 is the product of a hearing held by the Research
and Technology Subcommittee in February. Members and witnesses
discussed innovative workforce training approaches aimed at
boosting STEM education and careers in order to meet current
and future STEM professional and technical workforce needs. A
special thanks to Chairwoman Comstock and Ranking Member
Lipinski for holding that hearing.
Meeting our growing workforce needs in all areas of science
and technology is essential for our economic competitiveness.
For instance, according to a recent study, there will be a
need for 3.5 million skilled manufacturing workers over the
next decade. But it is anticipated that 2 million of those jobs
will go unfilled unless we recruit and educate a whole host of
high-skilled manufacturing workers.
H.R. 5509 continues the bipartisan progress this committee
has made to improve and expand science, technology, engineering
and mathematics (STEM) education programs and create new
pathways to STEM careers.
Research shows that direct knowledge and hands-on work
experience with STEM occupations and opportunities stimulate
interests in STEM studies and careers among students at every
level. To this end, H.R. 5509 directs the National Science
Foundation (NSF) to fund initiatives that support innovative
partnerships between academic institutions and local
industries.
The NSF is to offer at least $5 million per year over the
next four years for competitively awarded grants to community
colleges to develop new STEM courses and degrees. These
programs will combine formal education with on-the-job work
experiences, such as apprenticeships and internships, by
partnering with local employers.
The bill also requires at least $2.5 million per year over
the next four years for the NSF to award research grants to
measure student outcomes and the effectiveness of computer-
based and online courses for technical skills training.
Successful workforce development programs extend beyond the
four walls of classrooms and laboratories. One primary example
is at Wichita State University, which Mr. Marshall and I
visited last year.
During his testimony, Dr. John Bardo, the president of
Wichita State University, discussed the university's testing of
its applied learning initiative.
The university found that, on average, newly graduated
engineers take two years to contribute to the bottom line for
their employers. However, when Wichita State University
students were given an opportunity to participate in an
apprenticeship program prior to graduation, that timeline to
profitability was cut to six months.
The pending legislation directs the NSF to award at least
another $2.5 million per year for the next four years for
universities to partner with local employers and offer paid
apprenticeships and other applied learning experiences to STEM
students.
Not only can we learn from successful programs here in the
United States, it is also important to examine how other
developed nations address their skilled technical workforce
needs. This bill directs the NSF to commission research that
compares and contrasts skilled technical workforce development
between the United States and other developed nations and to
report the results to Congress.
H.R. 5509 requires the NSF to conduct research to improve
the efficiency of the skilled technical labor markets and
examine the skilled technical workforce to have a clear
understanding of workforce trends and needs.
The Innovations in Mentoring, Training, and Apprenticeships
Act, H.R. 5509, is a significant step in the right direction
towards ensuring the United States' competitiveness in the
global economy of today.
The initiatives in this legislation will leverage the hard
work and ingenuity of women and men of all ages, education
levels and backgrounds to grow and meet the demand for a STEM-
capable workforce.
I encourage my colleagues to support this bill and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Chairman Smith. And I now recognize the Ranking Member, the
gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Chairman Smith. Today, we
are marking up two bills, one good one, and one bad one. H.R.
5509, the Innovations in Mentoring, Training, and
Apprenticeships Act, is a good bill, and I support it.
Research has shown that we are experiencing a significant
STEM skills gap in this country. Employers are struggling to
find workers with the technical skills they need. My area is a
prime example. One cause for the gap is a lack of coordination
between educational institutions and industry. Skills taught in
secondary and postsecondary schools are not aligned with the
skills in high demand by employers. With an economy that is
increasingly data-driven and reliant on rapidly evolving
technologies, we must ensure our work force can keep pace.
Apprenticeships are a work force development strategy that
enables close coordination between high schools, vocational
schools, universities, and local employers. Although other
nations have enjoyed the benefits of apprenticeships for
decades, apprenticeships remain unutilized in this country.
This bill is a positive step in the right direction and is
a recognition and endorsement of good work that the National
Science Foundation is doing in this area. A strong STEM work
force poised to take on the challenges of a 21st century
economy is vital for continued growth, security, and global
competitiveness.
With regards to H.R. 5509, the Chairman and his staff
responded positively to suggestions and concerns of the
minority and to the feedback from the National Science
Foundation and modified the bill to improve it. I appreciate
these efforts, and I support passage of this bill.
I see we also have amendments offered by the gentlelady
from Oregon that make some improvements to the bill, and I look
forward to hearing about those amendments and supporting them.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Prepared Statement of Ms. Johnson
Thank you Chairman Smith. Today we are marking up two
bills- one good and one bad. H.R. 5509, the Innovations in
Mentoring, Training, and Apprenticeships Act is a good bill,
and I support it.
Research has shown that we are experiencing a significant
STEM skills gap in this country. Employers are struggling to
find workers with the technical skills they need. One cause for
the gap is the lack of coordination between educational
institutions and industry.
Skills taught in secondary and post-secondary schools are
not aligned with the skills in high demand by employers. With
an economy that is increasingly data-driven and reliant on
rapidly evolving technologies, we must ensure our workforce can
keep pace.
Apprenticeships are a workforce development strategy that
enables close coordination between high schools, vocational
schools, universities, and local employers. Although other
nations have enjoyed the benefits of apprenticeships for
decades, apprenticeships remain underutilized in this country.
This bill is a positive step in the right direction and is a
recognition and endorsement of the good work that the National
Science Foundation is doing in this area.
A strong STEM workforce poised to take on the challenges of
a 21st century economy is vital for continued growth, security,
and global competitiveness.
With regards to H.R. 5509, the Chairman and his staff
responded positively to suggestions and concerns of the
Minority and to feedback from the National Science Foundation,
and modified the bill to improve it. I appreciate these
efforts, and I support passage of this bill.
I see we also have amendments offered by the gentlelady
from Oregon to make some improvements to the bill, and I look
forward to supporting those amendments as well.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. We have two
amendments on the list, both to be offered by the gentlewoman
from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici. The first is well-intended; the
second is good. And the gentlewoman is recognized to offer the
first one.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment
at the desk.
Chairman Smith. And the clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 5509 offered by Ms. Bonamici
of Oregon, amendment 070.
Chairman Smith. And, without objection, the amendment is
considered as read and the gentlewoman is recognized to explain
her amendment.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Our nation has some of the best scientists, programmers,
and engineers in the world, but what sets our country apart is
innovation, the ability to come up with new ideas and find new
ways to solve problems, and this is especially important in
science, technology, engineering, and math.
Over the past several years, educators and employers have
seen great benefits from integrating arts and design into STEM
education, STEAM. STEAM engages more students and makes
learning more relevant. Educating both halves of the brain
results in more creative and innovative students who become
members of a more creative and innovative work force.
And in opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, you mentioned looking
at what other countries are doing. South Korea, for example, is
implemented STEAM because they want more creative hands-on
learning.
This bill is about improving STEM education, and I'm
pleased to see that this bill would award competitive grants to
community colleges to develop or improve associate degree and
certificate programs in STEM fields in response to significant
work force demand. This amendment would simply make sure that
the National Science Foundation can also consider for grants
those colleges or programs that are using the STEAM approach,
which more schools and businesses are recognizing as a way to
get creativity and innovation in the STEM fields. There is
neuroscience research to back them up. Integrating arts and
design into STEM enhances learning and leads to more
creativity. Think Leonardo da Vinci.
STEAM is not a partisan issue. I'm the Co-Chair of the
bipartisan congressional STEAM Caucus with Representative
Stefanik from New York. We've been working together to
emphasize the importance of arts and design in the education of
students in the development of our work force. When we had the
STEAM Caucus kickoff, for example, the U.S. Patent Office
attended. And in fact Governor Kasich of Ohio discussed his
support for STEAM in his 2016 State of the State address
mentioning that arts are essential for success in 21st century
careers. And just recently, the U.S. Department of Education
hosted--and Secretary DeVos attended--an event titled ``Full
Steam Ahead: Educational Summit on Science, Technology,
Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics. The Nobel Laureates in
sciences are significantly more likely to be engaged in arts
and design than other scientists.
Mr. Chairman and colleagues, STEAM prepare students to be
successful in the modern economy by teaching them the advanced
skills and creative thinking they will need to address
challenges in the future. So they will know not only how to
answer questions but what questions to ask. Maintaining our
position as an innovative country means continuing to fund
groundbreaking research and educating a cutting-edge next-
generation work force. I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici.
And I'll recognize myself to speak on the amendment. While
I understand Ms. Bonamici's goals, I oppose the amendment. Many
subjects correspond to or overlap with science, technology,
engineering, and math, including art, music, and language. The
inclusion of art in STEM, however, would dilute a national
effort to build a robust technical work force, which remains an
urgent national priority. In effect if art is included, where
does it end?
So I oppose the amendment. I appreciate the gentlewoman's
intentions and urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment as
well.
Are there--is there anyone else who wishes to speak on the
amendment?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Smith. The gentleman from California, Mr.
Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I would just like to add a thought if
we're discussing the education in STEM cell--or STEM education
that is. Let me just note that there's some people who are
claiming that we lack the number of people with skills in order
to run our aerospace industry. And I just would like to express
for the record that I am dismayed to meet so many people who
are 50 years old and above or have some disability, people who
are American citizens who are denied work because our major
corporations are finding it better to try to lobby us to bring
in people from overseas to take those jobs.
And I just believe that this whole H-1B visa situation is
as--really hurting Americans who have contributed so much to
our country. And when they get to be 50 and they're laid off
because the project contract is up and the company then has a
new contract, they want to bring on a 25-year-old immigrant
from India or anywhere else in the planet. And I would hope
that we care enough about our people who are engaged in making
America the technological and space power that we are so proud
of, that we care about these men, and I just--men and women who
are--deserve this.
And again, also people who have certain disabilities but
can get the job done are passed over. And I've just seen this
suffering in California, and a lot of these folks are veterans
who also were in the military even, and they're just--we are
not being true to them by bringing--by just saying we're going
to solve the problem by bringing people in from overseas.
I think the idea that we've got to focus on education for
our own people is a good fundamental idea, and I hope that we
will find ways of working on this in a way that you will be
able to support that, Mr. Chairman, as well as our----
Chairman Smith. OK.
Mr. Rohrabacher [continuing]. Colleagues on the other side
of the aisle. I just thought I'd put that in the record. Thank
you very much.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
Is there anyone else who seeks to be recognized?
Although the gentlewoman from Oregon has already been
recognized, we will recognize her without objection again.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I understand you
do not support this amendment at this time. I hope to continue
the conversation. I know I didn't mention that we had a STEAM
Caucus briefing with Boeing, Intel, and Lockheed Martin, all
talking about how they value creativity and innovation. So I
hope we can find a way to work together to promote a well-
rounded work force that's ready to meet the demands of our
growing economy in the future, and I thank the Chairman and
with that ask that my amendment be withdrawn. And I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, so ordered and
appreciated.
The gentlewoman is recognized for her second amendment.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment
at the desk.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment will be
considered as read.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 5509 offered by Ms. Bonamici
of Oregon, amendment number 071.
Chairman Smith. I spoke out of order. I should've said that
the amendment should be reported. Without objection, the
amendment will be considered, and the gentlewoman from Oregon
is recognized to explain this amendment.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I hear from many Oregonians, and I know you hear from your
constituents as well, who feel left behind and left out of the
economic recovery. Too many people are still struggling to make
ends meet. There may be job openings in their community, but
the jobs require skills and resources they don't have, creating
a skills gap that leaves businesses struggling to find workers
with the skills and workers without pathways to better-paying
jobs. We need to strengthen investments in work-based learning
programs that respond to local industry needs.
For example, in northwest Oregon, the Oregon Manufacturing
Innovations Center, or OMIC, is bringing together industry
leaders like Boeing with educational institutions such as
Oregon Tech, Oregon State University, Portland State
University, and Portland Community College to develop work-
based learning programs. This collaboration will result in
growth and efficiency in advanced manufacturing and a more
skilled workplace--workforce in the community. Through stronger
investments and work-based learning, we can build pathways to
get more people back to work and provide our Nation's
businesses with the work force that will improve productivity
and efficiency.
To help Oregonians and many other Americans who still face
job insecurity, we should expand work-based learning to sectors
of the economy that lack established apprenticeship programs
including in the STEM fields or STEAM fields. One way to
support these new apprenticeships is through the establishment
of industry partnerships which bring together employers,
education institutions, training providers, and community-based
organizations to support the creation and expansion of work-
based learning programs.
I'm glad this bill will direct the National Science
Foundation to provide grants to universities to develop or
improve apprenticeships for students enrolled in STEM fields
where there is significant work force demand. My amendment
would allow universities or community colleges to engage with
industry and sector partnerships in the grant application
process. Industry partnerships have proven to be a successful
model since the enactment of the Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act and can help employers that would otherwise
lack the resources to establish apprenticeships. The inclusion
of industry partnerships in this bill would encourage
continuity in State and local strategies to address skills
shortages.
I urge colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici. And I'll recognize
myself in support of the amendment. First of all, I want to
thank Ms. Bonamici and her staff for working with us on this
amendment. The competitive grants in this bill are intended to
spur innovative research through STEM partnerships between
academia and industry. This amendment reinforces the desire to
provide NSF with the flexibility needed to fund strong
partnerships between local and regional employers and academia
to experiment with applied learning opportunities. So I support
the amendment and encourage my colleagues to do the same.
Are there any other Members who wish to be recognized on
this amendment?
The gentlewoman, the Ranking Member, Ms. Johnson is
recognized and then Mr. Lipinski.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the
last word.
Chairman Smith. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Johnson. I want to thank Ms. Bonamici for offering this
amendment to expand the potential pool of partners in
developing apprenticeship programs to include industry or
sector partnerships. By incorporating the structure established
in the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, this amendment
provides clarity to grant proposers collaborating with local
and State work force development boards, and I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment. I thank you and yield
back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski, is recognized.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank Ms. Bonamici for her amendment to help
strengthen this important bill, and I'm proud to cosponsor this
bill. It's very important that we do more to promote the
development of our STEM technical work force. And the program
at the NSF to help do this has been very important, and it's
very good that we make sure we prioritize this moving forward.
I'm an ardent supporter of STEM education with two degrees
I have in engineering. I've also been a very strong supporter
of apprenticeships. We need to see expansion of apprenticeships
in our work force to really help to teach the skills that are
required for today's jobs.
A recent hearing in this Committee, we heard testimony from
a witness from Moraine Valley Community College, which is in my
district, and Moraine Valley runs a program that prepares
students for careers in cybersecurity, something that would--
this bill would help to do and to help expand such programs.
I think it's very important that--for the jobs that are out
there today that we need more skilled employees for that.
Apprenticeships certainly help significantly. And I think this
program at the NSF which would help strengthen the STEM
technical work force is going to be very significant.
I would like to have seen an increase in funding for this
program which this bill does not provide, but this bill is a
step in the right direction. I want to thank our
Representatives Smith and Marshall for their work on this bill,
and I urge all my colleagues to support it.
And I'll yield to Mr. Perlmutter.
Mr. Perlmutter. And thank you, Mr. Lipinski. You'll have
the opportunity on the next bill for STEM education grants to
add $8 million, so I just want to let you know that we're going
to authorize hopefully $8 million for STEM grants out of the
space program. And with that, I yield back.
Mr. Lipinski. And reclaiming my time, great idea, Mr.
Perlmutter, and will support that. I'll yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski. A little advance
advertisement by Mr. Perlmutter.
Is there any further discussion on the amendment?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
All in favor, say aye.
All opposed, nay.
The amendment is agreed to.
If there is no--if there are no further amendments, a
reporting quorum being present, I move that the Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology report H.R. 5509 to the House,
as amended, with a recommendation that the bill be approved.
Question is on favorably reporting H.R. 5509 to the House,
as amended.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, nay.
The ayes have it and the bill is ordered reported
favorably.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon
the table. H.R. 5509 is ordered reported to the House. I ask
unanimous consent that staff be authorized to make any
necessary technical and conforming changes, and without
objection, so ordered.
Let me say to Members that there are ongoing negotiations
on the NASA bill, and in order to conclude those discussions,
we're going to take a 5-minute recess and then we will
reconvene. So if Members will stay really close by--in fact,
you don't need to leave your seats at all. But we'll be back
with a NASA bill in about 5 minutes.
[Recess.]
Chairman Smith. Let me just say to my colleagues that we
are still waiting to hear from the minority as to what their
final response is going to be, and we have told them that we
expect to reconvey at 11 o'clock, so our 5 minutes is going to
15. But we hope to start again at 11.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, now that you have--we have a
little extra time, I wonder if you have some stories about the
great State of Texas that you could share with us.
Mr. Weber. Dana, I've got one for you if you want one.
Chairman Smith. OK. The gentleman from Texas is recognized,
but I'm a little worried as the----
Mr. Weber. Dana, Texas is so big that it was said that back
during the covered-wagon days when the pioneers were coming
West, if one entered Texas from Louisiana and a baby was born
on that day, by the time they got to El Paso, he was in the
first grade.
[Recess.]
H.R. 5503
Chairman Smith. Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R.
5503, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Authorization Act of 2018. The clerk will report the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 5503, to authorize the programs of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal years
2018 and 2019 and for other purposes.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the bill is considered
as read and open for amendment at any point. And I'll recognize
myself for an opening statement.
The NASA Authorization Act of 2018 is a crucial step in
continuing the greatness of American space exploration. The act
ensures that NASA will focus on its priority missions, leverage
private sector partnerships and entrepreneurship, and continue
space research that will launch America toward new scientific
discoveries and worlds. NASA's funding amounts to $20.74
billion or 1/2 of 1 percent of the Federal budget.
Consistent with the core policy tenants of the President's
budget request, the 2018 NASA Authorization Act maintains a
balanced portfolio across a broad array of NASA priority
programs and initiatives. It funds deep space exploration
systems above the President's request to expedite the Space
Launch System and Orion Spacecraft. It funds science above the
President's budget request to allow NASA to move forward with a
number of programs, including a Mars sample return mission and
Europa exploration.
The Committee has ongoing concerns that NASA has been given
responsibility for earth science activities that compete for
funding with NASA's core functions in space exploration and
aeronautics. A good example is Landsat. In the past, both
United States Geological Survey and NOAA have been responsible
for development and operation of Landsat satellites. But now,
NASA is responsible for mission and development activities,
including Landsat 9, along with an activity to design and build
a full-capability Landsat 10 satellite.
In the omnibus appropriation bill, 11 of the 12 other
agencies conducting earth science research received budget
increases, such as NOAA, DOE, United States Geological Survey,
Agriculture, EPA, NSF, the Smithsonian, DOT, HHS, DOD, and even
the United States Agency for International Development.
However, NASA has, for too long, conducted earth science work
for the benefit of other agencies without reimbursement.
To make certain NASA's funding authorization is truly
focused on space exploration and aeronautics, this act aligns
funding accordingly and directs reimbursement to NASA for earth
science work undertaken for the benefit of other agencies. This
reimbursement directive serves to offset NASA funding
reductions in earth science relative to the President's budget
request. However, earth science still receives $1.45 billion,
or 7 percent of NASA's entire budget. The act supports the
President's proposal to restructure and increase funding for
NASA's space technology programs to better align to NASA human
and robotic exploration needs. This is a good step forward for
NASA.
As a critical component to NASA's exploration agenda, for
too long, space technology investments lacked the focus and
attention they deserve. The act includes a number of provisions
increasing transparency into NASA's management of major
programs and ensuring that contractors are held responsible for
poor performance.
Just 3 weeks ago, Congress was notified that the James Webb
Space Telescope is delayed yet again. In fact, it has been
delayed no less than three times, originally scheduled for
launch in 2007, then 2014, then 2018, and now for 2020. And the
cost has increased from $1 billion to $8 billion. While this
Committee supports JWST, NASA and its contractors must be held
accountable.
The Committee looks forward to the Independent Review
Board's report this summer, which will determine the revised
cost estimate for the program and help define a way forward for
this space telescope program.
That brings me to the Wide Field Infrared Space Telescope,
WFIRST. This Committee has consistently supported it, but the
recent cost growth and independent review team findings are
similar to problems incurred on JWST. The act strikes a
balance, capping spending if WFIRST moves forward and providing
a set-aside in Fiscal Year 2019 of $180 million to address
justified recommendations of the JWST and WFIRST program
reviews that are pending.
We have explored near-Earth object defense at Committee
hearings. The Administration prioritized this mission and
requested $150 million for NASA's Planetary Defense program.
NASA must complete its NEO survey. Supporting projects such as
the NEOCam mission could go a long way to accomplishing this
task.
Testimony before this Committee has also highlighted that
we are on the verge of a breakthrough in the search for life
that could change the way humanity views its place in the
universe. In the 2017 NASA Transition Authorization Act, NASA
was given a new statutory directive for NASA to, quote,
``search for life's origin, evolution, distribution, and future
in the universe.'' This act directs and authorizes funds to
achieve that purpose.
It was my hope that today we would have a bipartisan
markup. In fact, discussions have been ongoing for weeks and a
draft bill text was exchanged 3 weeks ago. An offer was made,
and rejected, to fund earth science at the NASA-requested or
omnibus levels, though I expect that to continue to be
discussed shortly.
The United States has led the world in space exploration
for 50 years, and we must ensure that the United States
continues to do so for the next 50 years. We must also continue
to invest in NASA as the only American agency responsible for
space exploration.
I want to thank Chairman Babin for introducing this bill.
It redoubles our commitment to U.S. leadership in space for
decades to come.
Prepared Statement of Chairman Smith
The NASA Authorization Act of 2018 is a crucial step in
continuing the greatness of American space exploration.
The act ensures that NASA will focus on its priority
missions, leverage private sector partnerships and
entrepreneurship and continue space research that will launch
America toward new scientific discoveries and worlds. NASA's
funding amounts to $20.74 billion or one-half of one percent of
the federal budget.
Consistent with the core policy tenants of the president's
budget request, the 2018 NASA Authorization act maintains a
balanced portfolio across a broad array of NASA priority
programs and initiatives.
It funds deep space exploration systems above the
president's request to expedite the Space Launch System and
Orion Spacecraft.
It funds science above the president's budget request to
allow NASA to move forward with a number of programs including
a Mars Sample Return Mission and Europa exploration.
The committee has ongoing concerns that NASA has been given
responsibility for Earth science activities that compete for
funding with NASA's core functions in space exploration and
aeronautics. A good example is Landsat. In the past both USGS
and NOAA have been responsible for development and operation of
Landsat satellites.
But now, NASA is responsible for mission and development
activities, including Landsat 9, along with an activity to
design and build a full-capability Landsat 10 satellite.
In the omnibus appropriation bill, 11 of the 12 other
agencies conducting Earth science research received budget
increases, such as: NOAA; DOE; United States Geological Survey;
Agriculture; EPA; NSF; the Smithsonian; DOT; HHS; DoD; and even
the United States Agency for International Development.
However, NASA has, for too long, conducted Earth science work
for the benefit of other agencies without reimbursement.
To make certain NASA's funding authorization is truly
focused on space exploration and aeronautics, this act aligns
funding accordingly and directs reimbursement to NASA for Earth
science work undertaken for the benefit of other agencies. This
reimbursement directive serves to offset NASA funding
reductions in Earth science relative to the president's budget
request. However, Earth science still receives $1.45 billion,
or seven percent of NASA's entire budget.
The act supports the president's proposal to restructure
and increase funding for NASA's space technology programs to
better align to NASA human and robotic exploration needs. This
is a good step forward for NASA. As a critical component to
NASA's exploration agenda, for too long space technology
investments lacked the focus and attention they deserve.
The act includes a number of provisions increasing
transparency into NASA's management of major programs and
ensuring that contractors are held responsible for poor
performance.
Just three weeks ago, Congress was notified that the James
Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is delayed yet again. In fact, it
has been delayed no less than three times, originally scheduled
for launch in 2007, then 2014, then 2018 and now for 2020. And
the cost has increased from $1 billion to $8 billion.
While this committee supports JWST, NASA and its
contractors must be held accountable.
The committee looks forward to the Independent Review
Board's report this summer, which will determine the revised
cost-estimate for the program and help define a way forward for
this space telescope program.
That brings me to the Wide Field Infrared Space Telescope
(WFIRST). This committee has consistently supported WFIRST, but
the recent cost growth and independent review team findings are
similar to problems incurred on JWST. The act strikes a
balance, capping spending if WFIRST moves forward and providing
a set-aside in FY19 of $180 million to address justified
recommendations of the JWST and WFIRST program reviews that are
pending.
We have explored Near-Earth Object (NEO) defense at
committee hearings. The administration prioritized this mission
and requested $150 million for NASA's Planetary Defense
program. NASA must complete its NEO survey. Supporting projects
such as the NEOCam mission could go a long way to accomplishing
this task.
Testimony before this committee has also highlighted that
we are on the verge of a breakthrough in the search for life
that could change the way humanity views its place in the
universe. In the 2017 NASA Transition Authorization Act, NASA
was given a new statutory directive for NASA to ``search for
life's origin, evolution, distribution, and future in the
universe.'' This act directs and authorizes funds to achieve
that purpose.
It was my hope that today we would have a bipartisan
markup. In fact, discussions have been ongoing for weeks and
draft bill text was exchanged three weeks ago. An offer was
made, and rejected, to fund Earth Science at the NASA-requested
or omnibus levels. Though I expect that to continue to be
discussed today.
The U.S. has led the world in space exploration for 50
years, and we must ensure that the U.S. continues to do so for
the next 50 years. We must also continue to invest in NASA as
the only American agency responsible for space exploration.
I thank Chairman Babin for introducing this bill. It
redoubles our commitment to U.S. leadership in space for
decades to come.
Before I close, I want to thank the committee staff who
have devoted so much time and effort for months, including this
past weekend - I know we were all there on Sunday, for example,
and Saturday - to negotiate and perfect this bill. They are
Mike Mineiro, Ryan Faith, Sam Amber, Sara Ratliff, Molly Fromm,
Tom Connally, and recently departed for active Naval duty, Tom
Hammond, as well as Chairman Babin's staffer Steve
Janushkowsky. Thank you all.
I strongly recommend this bill and urge my colleagues to
actively support it.
Chairman Smith. I'll now recognize the Ranking Member, the
gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, for her opening statement.
Oh, and before I close, I'd like to add one more thing.
Excuse me, Ms. Johnson. I want to thank the Committee staff who
have devoted so much time and effort for months, including this
past weekend--I know we were all there on Sunday, for example,
and Saturday--to negotiate a perfect--this bill. They are Mike
Mineiro, Ryan Faith, Sam Amber, Sara Ratliff, Molly Fromm, Tom
Connally, and the recently departed for active Naval duty, Tom
Hammond, as well as Chairman Babin's staff Steve Janushkowsky.
Thank you all for the long-time effort, for the many hours, and
for working over this last weekend.
I strongly support the bill and I urge my colleagues to
support it as well. And that concludes my opening statement,
and the Ranking Member is recognized for hers.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Unlike the last bill we considered, this bill, H.R. 5503,
is deeply flawed, and the process that got us to this moment
was just as flawed, as I will explain. First, this bill slashes
funding for earth science by a half-billion dollars in Fiscal
Year 2019, a quarter of the total earth science budget. These
cuts are simply another manifestation of the majority's
continued war on climate science.
However, these reckless cuts are so deep that they will
likely threaten more than just climate science at NASA. The
earth science budget supports numerous programs that help
Americans from aiding farmers to saving American lives and
natural disaster response, and all of us must know what natural
disaster has been like recently.
Where all of this money--where does all of this money go?
The majority diverts it to searching for space aliens and to
the President's unexamined initiative to build an orbiting moon
base, among other things. I really wish this was a joke. The
majority slashes funding for programs that help humans here on
earth and instead prioritizes spending money to find space
aliens.
Let me be clear. I think the search for life in the
universe is a fascinating quest, and I'm also a strong
supporter of exploration, but I think melting ice caps, rising
sea levels, the increases in extreme weather events and
droughts, and the other serious manifestations of climate
change here on earth are also things we should be concerned
about and studying.
I don't have time today to discuss all the issues with this
bill because there really are many. I would just note that the
bill endorses President Trump's exploration priorities and
plans without the Committee having had a single hearing to
review it. It directs NASA to follow the ISS transition plan
before Committee Members have even had any opportunity to
review it in depth or hear from stakeholders. I could go on
with other examples, but I think you get the point.
As problematic as the substance of this bill is, the
process that brought us here today is just as problematic. The
majority's staff began discussing this legislation with
minority a couple of weeks ago. They first provided minority
staff with an early draft 2 weeks ago.
A significantly different version was provided to the
minority on April the 12th. It came with an ultimatum. In
essence, if I didn't agree to support the bill as written, then
the Chairman would notice the markup on April the 13th with a
very different punitive version of the bill. And that's what's
happened, just as Members were leaving town for the weekend. I
really don't think vindictiveness is a good basis for
legislating.
I also don't think it is very effective in the long run. I
don't think it is very effective, especially for professionals
that have the confidence of the public to look out for their
common good. But the reality is we are now marking up a
partisan bill that has been rushed to markup with childish
ultimatums and arbitrary deadlines in the process,
disenfranchising Members on both sides of the aisle from being
able to conduct the oversight in hearings that one of our
Committee's most significant agencies warrant. There is no way
to legislate for an agency that accounts for fully 1/2 of the
total dollars that our Committee authorizes.
It has needlessly injected partisanship in our Nation's
space program yet again. That doesn't help NASA, nor does it
help us. Instead, it ultimately winds up weakening the
widespread bipartisan support NASA has traditionally enjoyed,
and it certainly diminishes the standing of this Committee.
I yield back.
Prepared Statement of Ms. Johnson
Thank you Chairman Smith. Unlike the last bill we
considered, this bill, H.R. 5503, is deeply flawed, and the
process that got us to this moment was just as flawed, as I
will explain.
First, this bill slashes funding for Earth Science by half
a billion dollars in FY 19-a quarter of the total Earth Science
budget. These cuts are simply another manifestation of the
Majority's continued war on climate science.
However, these reckless cuts are so deep that they will
likely threaten more than just climate science at NASA. The
Earth Science budget supports numerous programs that help
Americans, from aiding farmers to saving American lives in
natural disaster response.
Where does all this money go? The Majority diverts it to
searching for space aliens and to the President's unexamined
initiative to build an orbiting moon base, among other things.
I wish I were joking.
The Majority slashes funding for programs that help humans
here on Earth, and instead prioritizes spending money to find
space aliens.
Let me be clear: I think the search for life in the
universe is a fascinating quest, and I'm also a strong
supporter of Exploration. But I think melting ice caps, rising
sea levels, the increases in extreme weather events and
drought, and the other serious manifestations of climate change
here on Earth are also things we should be concerned about and
studying.
I don't have time today to discuss all the issues with this
bill, and there are many. I would just note that the bill
endorses President Trump's Exploration priorities and plans
without the Committee having had a single hearing to review
them.
It directs NASA to follow the ISS Transition Plan before
Committee Members have even had any opportunity to review it in
depth or hear from stakeholders. I could go on with other
examples, but I think you get my point.
As problematic as the substance of the bill is, the process
that brought us here today is just as problematic. The Majority
staff began discussing this legislation with the Minority a
couple of weeks ago. They first provided Minority staff with an
early draft two weeks ago. A significantly different version
was provided to the Minority on April 12th. It came with an
ultimatum: In essence, if I didn't agree to support the bill as
written, then the Chairman would notice the markup on April
13th with a different, punitive version of the bill.
And that's what happened, just as Members were leaving town
for the weekend.
I really don't think vindictiveness is a good basis for
legislating. I also don't think it is very effective in the
long run. But the reality is we are now marking up a partisan
bill that has been rushed to markup with childish ultimatums
and arbitrary deadlines-in the process, disenfranchising
Members on both sides of the aisle from being able to conduct
the oversight and hearings that one of our Committee's most
significant agencies warrants.
This is no way to legislate for an agency that accounts for
fully one half of the total dollars our Committee authorizes.
It has needlessly injected partisanship into our Nation's
space program, yet again. That doesn't help NASA. Instead, it
ultimately winds up weakening the widespread bipartisan support
NASA has traditionally enjoyed, and it certainly diminishes the
standing of this Committee.
I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. I'm going to
recognize myself for a minute to respond and--so that all
Members know at least how I see the process.
For several weeks going back to mid-March long before a
draft bill was complete, my staff had been in discussion with
their minority counterparts regarding the NASA authorization
markup. Text was formally transmitted to minority staff on
Monday, April 2. On April 3 and April 4, 2 weeks ago, majority
staff met with their minority counterparts for more than 5
hours to walk through the bill and answer questions. Indeed,
several suggestions made during these discussions with minority
staff were incorporated into the bill.
Originally, this markup was scheduled for April 12, and
majority and minority staff were working toward this date. The
decision was made to postpone the markup to today, April 17, in
order to allow staff more time to work on the bill at the
minority' request.
On April 11, a formal offer was made for a bipartisan bill
with higher levels for the earth science account. On April 12,
the most up-to-date version to the policy provisions of the
bill were transmitted to minority staff literally within
seconds after we received it. Majority staff offered to discuss
the bill and the offer at the minority's convenience. The offer
was never accepted.
The majority staff in my view has acted in good faith and
been in discussions of the bill with the minority on a regular
basis for weeks.
I'll now recognize the gentleman from Texas, the Chairman
of the Space Subcommittee, Mr. Brian Babin.
Mr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's an honor and a
privilege to bring the NASA 2018 authorization to this
Committee today.
Just over a year ago, the 2017 National Transition
Authorization Act was signed into law, representing a clear
bipartisan commitment to our Nation's space program. That law
established and this bill continues to honor three very
important provisions: Continuity of purpose, clear long-term
goals for exploration, and a balanced space science portfolio.
NASA must stay the course on future exploration while
preserving our advancements in low Earth orbit.
The first urgent question is the future of the
International Space Station. The ISS is the jewel in the crown
of America's space program. As a representative of the
hardworking men and women of Johnson Space Center, I know how
important the ISS is to our Nation.
The Administration, in response to congressional direction
in 2017, has provided a proposal for ISS transition. It is too
early to say how or when the transition will occur, but the
recent report outlines a credible course of action and early
initial steps. I support the Administration carrying out these
first steps, but it is critically important that we see a more
detailed plan before steps are taken to sunset the ISS.
The bill directs NASA to continue the operation of the ISS
for such time as Congress authorizes. It prevents the
Administration from pursuing any international agreements that
would tie the hands of future Congresses. The Administrator
must report directly to this Committee every 3 months on the
status of the ISS transition. In other words, the ISS must be
transitioned but not before we as a nation are ready to do so.
This bill provides funding for the SLS and Orion programs
at omnibus levels, signaling that we will support the programs
as they move toward realization. It also explicitly authorizes
and directs the development of a second mobile launch platform
to increase safety, reduce delays, and provide flexibility for
exploration.
These and other measures provide a strong foundation,
fostering a whole-of-government, indeed, a whole-of-nation
approach to space. As Vice President Pence said yesterday,
space exploration is essential to our national security, it's
essential to our Nation's prosperity, and it is essential to
the very character of America.
I have and continue to support the idea of a balanced space
program. We must also understand that balanced means not only
balanced within NASA but also balanced across government.
Within the proposed authorization levels, NASA's science
portfolio is 30 percent of NASA's budget. This is consistent
with both the omnibus and the President's budget request. In
planetary science, this bill increases spending from the kind
of science that only NASA can do and for which NASA is the
first and perhaps the only customer such as Mars sample return
and missions to Europa. In a responsible way, earth science is
correspondingly reduced.
The Administration is directed to provide NASA
reimbursement for work undertaken for the benefit of other
agencies such as the development of particular earth science
systems. This will allow NASA--continuing working on missions
like Landsat without undermining its exploration mission.
NASA fills an essential and irreplaceable role for our
country. It is the only agency to send humans to the surface of
another celestial body, to send spacecraft to every planet in
the solar system, and to send probes into interstellar space.
I want to thank Chairman Smith for his leadership and
guidance in reaffirming our national commitment to the
exploration and use of space. I strongly recommend this bill
and urge my colleagues to actively support it.
Prepared Statement of Mr. Babin
It is an honor and a privilege to bring the NASA 2018
Authorization to this committee today.
Just over a year ago, the 2017 NASA Transition
Authorization Act was signed into law, representing a clear
bipartisan commitment to our nation's space program. That law
established and this bill continues to honor three very
important provisions: Continuity of purpose, clear long-term
goals for exploration and a balanced space science portfolio.
NASA must stay the course on future exploration while
preserving our advancements in low-Earth orbit.
The first urgent question is the future of the
International Space Station (ISS). The ISS is the jewel in the
crown of America's space program. As a representative of the
hard working men and women of Johnson Space Center, I know how
important the ISS is to our nation.
The administration, in response to congressional direction
in 2017, has provided a proposal for ISS transition. It is too
early to say how or when the transition will occur but the
recent report outlines a credible course of action and early
initial steps. I support the administration in carrying out
first steps. I support the administration carrying out these
first steps but it is critically important that we see a more
detailed plan before steps are taken to sunset ISS.
The bill directs NASA to continue the operation of the ISS
for such time as Congress authorizes. It prevents the
administration from pursuing any international agreements that
would tie the hands of a future Congress. The administrator
must report directly to this committee every three months on
the status of the ISS transition. In other words, the ISS must
be transitioned, but not before we, as a nation, are ready to
do so.
This bill provides funding for the SLS and Orion programs
at omnibus levels, signaling that we will support the programs
as they move towards realization. It also explicitly authorizes
and directs development of a second mobile launch platform to
increase safety, reduce delays and provide flexibility for
exploration.
These and other measures provide a strong foundation,
fostering a whole-ofgovernment, indeed, whole-of-nation
approach to space. As Vice President Pence said yesterday:
``Space exploration is essential to our national security, it's
essential to our nation's prosperity, and it is essential to
the very character of America.''
I have and continue to support the idea of a balanced space
program. We must also understand that ``balanced'' means not
only balanced within NASA but also balanced across government.
Within the proposed authorization levels, NASA's science
portfolio is 30 percent of NASA's budget. This is consistent
with both the omnibus and the president's budget request.
In Planetary Science, this bill increases spending for the
kind of science that only NASA can do and for which NASA is the
first, and perhaps only, customer, such as Mars Sample Return
and missions to Europa.
In a responsible way, Earth science is correspondingly
reduced. The administration is directed to provide NASA
reimbursement for work undertaken for the benefit of other
agencies, such as the development of particular Earth science
systems. This will allow NASA to continuing working on missions
like Landsat without undermining its exploration mission.
NASA fills an essential and irreplaceable role for our
country. It is the only agency to send humans to the surface of
another celestial body, to send spacecraft to every planet in
the solar system and to send probes to interstellar space.
I thank Chairman Smith for his leadership and guidance in
reaffirming our national commitment to the exploration and use
of space.
I strongly recommend this bill and urge my colleagues to
actively support it.
Before I yield back to the Chairman, without of objection,
I'd like to place the following letters and statements of
support in the record, from a number of organizations
including:
LAerospace Industries Association
LAmerican Society for Gravitational and Space
Research
LAssociation of Universities for Research in
Astronomy
LAstrobotic
LBay Area Houston Economic Partnership
LBoeing
LCommercial Spaceflight Federation
LMade in Space
LMoon Express
LNanoracks
LNational Space Grant Alliance
LTexas A&M University System
LVector Space Systems
LVirginia Commercial Spaceflight Authority
LSpace Florida
Mr. Babin. And before I yield back to the Chairman, without
an objection, I'd like to place the following letters and
statements of support in the record from a number of
organizations, including the Aerospace Industries Association,
American Society for Gravitational and Space Research,
Association of Universities for Research and Astronomy,
Astrobotic, Bay Area Houston Economic Partnership, Boeing,
Commercial Spaceflight Federation, Made in Space, Moon Express,
NanoRacks, National Space Grant Alliance, Texas A&M University
System, Vector Space Systems, Virginia Commercial Spaceflight
Authority, and Space Florida. I request to enter these 15
letters and statements into the record without objection.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, that list of
individuals, organizations, companies, and stakeholders who
endorse the bill will be made a part of the record.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Babin. Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Babin.
The gentleman from California, the Ranking Member of the
Space Subcommittee, Mr. Bera, is recognized for an opening
statement.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The importance of our investments in NASA and its ability
to inspire can't be underestimated. I often talk about my
childhood and vivid recollections of the space program and the
influence that NASA and the Apollo program had in my pursuit of
science and medicine.
NASA's work also helps us attract the best and brightest to
go into STEM disciplines and contributes to world-class work
force. Our work force not only makes NASA's scientific
discoveries possible, but it powers an engine of innovation and
economic strength for our country through its advances in human
exploration, aeronautics, and space technology.
Mr. Chairman, one of the things that I've enjoyed most
about, you know, working with the Ranking Subcommittee Chairman
Mr. Babin is how bipartisan our--and collaborative our hearings
have been, you know, whether we're talking about deep space
exploration, the discovery of planets and the habitable zone,
looking for life out there, you know.
But what bothers me and what has me concerned about today's
NASA authorization bill under consideration is that both I and
my colleagues received this bill on Friday. With Fiscal Year
2018 appropriations of $20.7 billion, NASA's the largest agency
under the jurisdiction of this Committee. While I understand
the majority and minority staff were communicating on a
discussion draft of the bill, Democratic staff did not receive
proposed funding numbers and a finalized bill text until late
last week.
Mr. Chairman, we both share the goal of sustaining a strong
NASA that is funded sufficiently to complete the tasks the
Nation has asked of it. However, I have concerns about how a
rushed markup process can help us reach that goal together. Our
colleagues just returned to Washington last night, leaving
little time to fully consider the bill and the funding and
policy direction it would give to NASA. Moreover, I remain
worried about potential implications of a rushed markup on that
important policy, issues regarding our space program,
especially in light of NASA's need to reassess program and
spending plans following the recently enacted Fiscal Year 2018
omnibus.
Turning to the content of the bill, the proposed $474
million cut to earth sciences for Fiscal Year 2019 is deeply
concerning when NASA's earth science data played a key role in
informing our response to a number of natural disasters that
wreaked havoc this past year.
At the same time, the bill proposes increasing the
planetary science account by more than $400 million above
Fiscal Year 2018 appropriated levels without any basis policy
guidance on how to--how the increase is to be spent. In
addition, the astrophysics decadal survey's top-ranked WFIRST
mission that we discussed during our NASA Fiscal Year 2019
budget hearing and its potential to return transformational
science is called into question in this bill.
The role of NASA's space technology program, including
important initiatives on satellite servicing and its potential
applications for industry, also could be shortchanged. Further,
policy would be set on the International Space Station
transition without the opportunity of our Committee to review
NASA's recently submitted transition plan, as required by last
year's NASA Transitional Authorization Act. The future of ISS
is a major policy issue and one that deserves the Committee's
oversight.
Mr. Chairman, this Committee's policy and direction for
NASA will be felt in the next generation of stargazers, space
explorers, business leaders, scientists, and engineers. Before
we legislate, we have an obligation to take the time to hold
hearings, gather the necessary information, consider the views
of stakeholders, and weigh the decisions that will help sustain
a strong and stable future for NASA.
With that, I look forward to working with you to that end
and having those hearings. Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Smith. OK. Thank you, Mr. Bera. And let me respond
to a couple of your points. And the first is to reassure you
and other Members of the Committee that between now and the
House floor we will continue to have discussions on policies,
and those discussions will be in good faith.
I realize that the minority has not had as much time as
they would've liked. On the other hand, we have complied with
all requirements, legislative and otherwise. And while I regret
that staff has to work on weekends, I sometimes think that that
simply has to be done. And I know the majority staff did work
over the weekend as well.
So I'm hoping we can go forward with a good-faith
bipartisan effort that after the Perlmutter amendment will
allow all Members to support the bill.
And to that end let me say that we are going to take up the
amendment in the nature of a substitute--I mean, the manager's
amendment by Mr. Babin first, after which we will go to Mr.
Perlmutter's amendment.
Let's see. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Babin, is
recognized to offer the manager's amendment.
Mr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. And does the gentleman have an amendment at
the desk?
Mr. Babin. I do have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Smith. OK. The clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 5503 offered by Mr. Babin of
Texas, amendment number 001.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, and the gentleman is recognized to explain
his manager's amendment.
Mr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This amendment represents a good-faith effort to
incorporate constructive feedback received from stakeholders
after the introduction of the bill. It also contains technical
corrections. This amendment emphasizes the President's goal to
lead the return of humans to the moon for long-term exploration
and utilization, followed by human missions to Mars and other
destinations.
Furthermore, this amendment makes it clear that NASA shall
pursue the expeditious development of a new-build second mobile
launch platform, and NASA shall also procure a second interim
cryogenic propulsion stage.
Finally, this amendment encourages NASA to leverage State
Government infrastructure investments and also requires a
report by NASA on procurement opportunities, commercial and
space services, or infrastructure for exploration.
I support this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the
same.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Babin.
Let me respond real quickly and say that I thank him for
this amendment. The manager's amendment makes technical and
conforming changes to the bill and also makes changes that
result from members' and stakeholder feedback. The amendment
improves the bill, and I thank again the Chairman of the Space
Subcommittee for his good work on this.
And the gentlewoman from Texas, the Ranking Member, is
recognized.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the
last word.
Chairman Smith. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Johnson. I'm reluctantly going to have to oppose the
gentleman's amendment in its current form. I appreciate the
fact that the amendment fixes some of the problems with the
bill that resulted from the rush to mark up the bill that
clearly is not ready for markup. Reversing the funding
incorrectly allocated to the 2 million exploration projects,
SLS and Orion is an obvious example. The amendment also gets
rid of problematic commercialization language that had not been
adequately vetted.
If the changes had been confined to those items and to the
technical corrections that are included, I probably could
support this amendment. Unfortunately, the amendment also adds
additional provisions, another indication of a bill that was
brought to markup before it was ready.
And some of these provisions are problematic or premature.
These range from endorsing the President's exploration
priorities without even having seen the long overdue
exploration roadmap this Committee asked for in 2017 Transition
Act, apparently imposing an unfunded mandate on NASA to develop
a second ICPS, and requiring a wasteful and unnecessary GAO
report.
In sum, the gentleman's amendment makes some useful
corrections, but it also includes additional provisions that
need more scrutiny. I hope that the gentleman would consider
withdrawing this amendment to allow time to address these
issues.
I thank you and yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. Is there any
further discussion on the amendment?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the manager's
amendment offered by Mr. Babin.
All in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
The next amendment is going to be an amendment offered by
the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Perlmutter, and he is
recognized for that purpose.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an
amendment at the desk, number 28.
Chairman Smith. The clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 5503 offered by Mr. Perlmutter
of Colorado, amendment number 028.
Mr. Perlmutter. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
the reading of the amendment.
Chairman Smith. OK. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, and the gentleman is recognized to explain
the amendment.
Mr. Perlmutter. The amendment is sort of at the heart of
some of the concerns that we have concerning the bill, and I
appreciate the Chairman's agreement to continue to allow
negotiations by all of us as this--as the overall bill moves
forward.
The amendment that I have proposed, amendment 28, is to
restore $471 million, which was a 25 percent cut from the
Fiscal Year 2018 budget for earth sciences. So the purpose is
to restore that cut. I want to remind everyone what earth
sciences, what this line item really is. It is to develop a
scientific understanding of the earth system and its response
to natural or human-induced changes and to improve prediction
of climate, weather, and natural hazards both for personal
safety, as well as commerce. What we're trying to do is have
the best data we can gather about the earth's oceans, service,
and atmosphere, and try to understand our planet to the best of
our ability. That understanding will improve weather forecasts
and has a tremendous impact on the safety of our constituents
and the flow of commerce across the world.
I was pleased to see language in this bill which
acknowledges the work of the recently released earth sciences
decadal survey. Included in the survey was a wealth of
information on the importance of earth science data and how we
use this data in our daily lives. The decadal survey
acknowledged the tight budget environment facing earth science
research, and they made some tough decisions in putting
together that document, but the fact is that even under current
funding there's about 1/3 less than what is necessary. Cuts
like initially proposed in the bill of 25 percent only
exacerbate the problem and undercut the earth science decadal
survey that the bill actually endorses.
So I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to
support the amendment to restore the $471 million cut to earth
sciences so that we can have the equipment and the services
that are necessary for us to understand how all of this fits
together, whether it's through weather satellites or just the
continued observations that we make through the NASA line item
budget.
With that, I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Perlmutter.
Let me recognize myself in support of the amendment and say
at the outset I appreciate his initiative in drafting this
amendment and offering it now. I also appreciate the support of
the Ranking Member and Mr. Bera, the Ranking Member of the
Space Subcommittee.
This was not an easy amendment for the majority to swallow,
and I think you all know that. But we are going forward in good
faith with majority support because we want to generally and
hopefully increase the prospects of this NASA bill going
forward on the floor and beyond that. So I recognize this
amendment represents a compromise. I hope there will be strong
support on both sides to show good faith for the process, which
includes bipartisanship discussions, as well as an effort to
try to do the best we can for NASA. So, again, thank you for
the amendment.
And is there anyone else who wishes to be recognized on
this amendment? Does the Ranking Member want to be recognized?
Ms. Johnson. I support the amendment, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. OK. Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Bera?
Mr. Bera. I support the amendment as well.
Chairman Smith. OK. Anyone else want to speak any longer on
the amendment?
Mr. Perlmutter. I'm happy to talk some more.
Chairman Smith. OK. And I think we're fine over here. All
right. Let's see. Without any further discussion on the
amendment, the question is on agreeing to Mr. Perlmutter's
amendment.
All in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
The amendment is agreed to, and we will now--the gentleman
from Colorado is recognized.
Ms. Johnson. Can we have a recorded vote?
Chairman Smith. A recorded vote has been requested, and as
mentioned earlier, the recorded votes will be postponed.
Up next is--we'll now go back to regular order on the list
of amendments, and the next one is going to be offered by the
gentleman from Florida, Mr. Posey, and he is recognized for
that purpose.
Mr. Posey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at
the desk.
Chairman Smith. The clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 5503 offered by Mr. Posey of
Florida, amendment number 049.
Chairman Smith. And without objection, the amendment will
be considered as read, and the gentleman is recognized to
explain his amendment.
Mr. Posey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Following the public disclosure of security and export
control violations at its research centers, the Administration
contacted--contracted with the National Academy of Public
Administration to conduct an independent assessment of how the
Administration carried out foreign national access management
practices and other security matters. The assessment by the
National Academy of Public Administration concluded that NASA
networks are compromised and the Administration lacked a
standardized and systematic approach to export compliance and
that individuals within the Administration were not held
accountable when making serious preventable errors in carrying
out foreign national access management processes and other
security matters.
This amendment simply requires the Administration to report
to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation over in the Senate on how it plans to address
each of the recommendations made to the security assessment by
the National Academy of Public Administration regarding
security and safeguarding export control information. I ask my
colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the
remainder of my time.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Posey, for your amendment,
and I support it. It will ensure that the information
technology security recommendations from the National Academy
of Public Administration on foreign national access management
are in fact implemented, and I encourage Members to support the
amendment.
Is there anyone who wishes to be recognized on the
amendment? If not, the question is on agreeing to the Posey
amendment.
All in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to.
We will now go to an amendment to be offered by the
gentleman from Florida, Mr. Dunn, and he is recognized.
Mr. Dunn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Chairman Babin of
the Subcommittee, Ranking Members----
Chairman Smith. And----
Mr. Dunn [continuing]. Johnson and Ami Bera.
Chairman Smith. And the gentleman has an amendment at the
desk, and the clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 5503 offered by Mr. Dunn of
Florida, amendment number 041.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, and the gentleman continues to be
recognized to explain his amendment.
Mr. Dunn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This is an
exciting day for the Members of the Committee. We have the
opportunity to help shape the authorities and funding of NASA
and its partners that they'll use to advance space exploration
and science. So with that objective in mind, I'm offering
amendment 41.
State and local governments have invested hundreds of
millions of dollars in new space-related infrastructure that
benefits Federal civil programs, national security programs and
missions, as well as the commercial space industry. This
amendment proposes a report that describes those investments
and partnerships that have benefited the Federal, commercial,
and State users. It also requires reporting on the prospective
or burgeoning opportunities for Federal-State matching grant
funding to support shared infrastructure, as well as how these
partnerships can be expanded to better serve civil, national
security, and commercial space missions.
And I ask that the Committee support this amendment to H.R.
5503. And with that, I yield back. Thank you.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Dunn. I'll recognize myself
in support of the amendment, which creates a lasting
partnership between NASA and State and local governments.
In a limited budget environment, we must make difficult
choices about how to fund Federal programs. The ability to
leverage the strengths and expertise of State and local
governments will help to maintain American space leadership now
and in the future. So I thank Mr. Dunn for offering this
amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it.
If there's no further discussion, all in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to.
Next up is an amendment to be offered by the gentleman from
California, Mr. Rohrabacher, and he is recognized for that
purpose.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
Chairman Smith. And----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman----
Chairman Smith [continuing]. The gentleman has an amendment
at the desk.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Smith. And without objection, the amendment is a--
the clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 5503 offered by Mr.
Rohrabacher of California, amendment number 025.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, and the gentleman is recognized to explain
his amendment.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
When I first arrived here a number of years ago, I was told
that the House and the Senate have one thing in common with
both the House and Senate, and that is that we both have 100
Members who are total idiots. And let me just say that what we
have been witnessing with the prevention of an Administrator
for NASA for over 15 months is a disgrace. It's a disgrace for
not just the Senate, not just the House, for Congress in
general. Congress is not doing its job in a number of areas. I
think it underscores that we do need some fundamental reform of
our process, both Senate and House.
But today, we realize that the Senate, on something that
could very easily be done, and that is a confirmation of a NASA
Administrator. And we have a fellow--a colleague who we all
know who's bright, he's creative, who could do--be doing a
fantastic job for our country through--as being the
Administrator of NASA. He's been held up by the U.S. Senate.
And we need--now, let me just note that Robert Lightfoot as
Acting Administrator of NASA has done a terrific job. We've all
had a chance to talk with him and work with them, so my hat's
off to him, but it is disgraceful that we have not actually put
in place an Administrator, permanent Administrator.
So my amendment States--this is getting tough--no
appropriations shall be authorized to NASA until a NASA
Administrator nominee is confirmed by the U.S. Senate. That's
simple as that. And if the Senate doesn't think that it's
important enough to vote on a NASA Administrator, maybe they
don't think it's important for us to fund NASA. And that's
that.
Mr. Perlmutter. Does the gentleman yield?
Mr. Rohrabacher. I certainly would.
Mr. Perlmutter. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
And I agree with you 100 percent that Mr. Bridenstine ought
to be confirmed by the Senate, and this delay is really
unconscionable because the agency needs leadership. Mr.
Lightfoot was fantastic. He has now stepped down. But I'd ask
my friend, do you really need the sledgehammer at this point
about no funding for NASA? That would be my----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, if the Chairman would ask me to put
my big hammer down and lay it aside for a little while, I guess
I'd be willing to acquiesce to our fine Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Does the gentleman wish to withdraw the
amendment?
Mr. Rohrabacher. I withdraw my amendment.
Chairman Smith. OK. Without objection, the amendment is
withdrawn, but you sure got Mr. Perlmutter's attention, which
was worth doing.
The gentleman from California has another amendment. He's
recognized for the purposes of offering that.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Smith. The clerk will report the amendment. This
is Rohrabacher second amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 5503 offered by Mr.
Rohrabacher of California, amendment number 026.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, and the gentleman is recognized to explain
the amendment.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I have quite often mentioned that there is
a major threat looming that we have not dealt with and that we
should make sure that we spend more time making sure that our--
that the whole job we're trying to do in space cannot be
destroyed by space debris. And I believe space debris is a very
serious challenge. It's actually--I believe as we move on,
space debris is going to be as great a challenge in getting
things done in space as are the technical and just--of what
we're trying to accomplish with various technologies that we're
bringing to bear.
So my amendment again emphasizes that the space debris
actually is reaching a point where collisions of--with space
debris may cause more space debris. And basically, what we're
asking for is that this be reaffirmed in the authorization bill
that space debris something that should be a high priority for
NASA to be looking at and dealt with.
Chairman Smith. Does the gentleman yield back his time?
Mr. Rohrabacher. I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. I just want to
say I support your amendment. I appreciate your long-standing
interest in this subject, and I hope other Members will support
it as well.
Does anyone wish to be heard on this amendment?
If not----
Ms. Johnson. It just makes more sense than the last one.
Chairman Smith. The Ranking Member says it makes more sense
than the last one. But I'll let--we'll take that as a yes. OK.
OK.
All--if there's no further discussion, all in favor of the
Rohrabacher amendment--this is the second amendment--say aye.
Opposed, nay.
The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
And the gentleman from California is recognized for his
third and last amendment.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes. I'm buoyed by the fact that I have
received such support from the other side of the aisle on my
last amendment. Let me note that what we have--and my--oh, I
have an amendment at the floor. OK. What it is--we are--
determination--insert a new paragraph, determinations by the
Administrator or Secretary under paragraph D must be publicly
disclosed 30 days prior to the acquisition of such space
products.
What we're talking about--my amendment is talking about is
there's a requirement that whenever the Administrator makes a
decision as to what type of technologies and what type of
supplies are needed by the space program, that it--that
basically, we--and that we try to do commercial rather than
simply leave it a matter of leaving it up to the government and
the bureaucracy.
Well, there is an exception to that that allows the--that
permits the Administrator to actually, you know, go--to go and
decide not to use the commercial alternatives. And it States,
``In carrying out space exploration missions, Administrator
shall prioritize acquisitions to use in space products provided
by the United States and other commercial--and commercial
United States providers.''
Let me note there is an exception to that provision, and I
like the provision. The provision underscores America's
fundamental strengths, which is by using the commercial and the
private sector, we're able to bring things in a costly manner,
actually more costly than just using the government. It creates
a marketplace which will bring down the cost of future needs.
And anyway, we need to really encourage commercial use and
alternatives for our space missions.
My amendment comes to place in that exception which is the
NASA Administrator or the Secretary of the Air Force to make a
determination that the commercial approach is not--the
commercial space is not really right in this specific decision.
Well, I think that's fine, but what my amendment does is make
certain that there is an accountability if commercial space
alternatives are not being used. And it just requires that the
Secretary--or the Administrator and the Secretary of Air Force
actually make--you know, make public why they made that
decision. And it's a matter of transparency basically.
And so with that, I said, it is clear, however, to me that
we have not worked out the wording of this in a way that's
acceptable to everyone. And I appreciate your leadership, Mr.
Chairman, and so I'm going to be withdrawing this amendment,
which makes this mandate of whenever they're not using
commercial, that it actually be explained and be publicly
presented. But we--the idea is a good idea, but I understand
there's some objections to specific wording of how my--with an
understanding that we'll work together on finding the right
wording where both sides of the aisle can agree and that we can
all agree. I'd be willing to withdraw my amendment.
Chairman Smith. OK. And without objection, the amendment is
withdrawn, but let me reassure the gentleman from California
that, as he suggested, we will continue to work on the
language. And I do appreciate the statement and--that he made
and his interest in the subject.
We will now----
Mr. Rohrabacher. And I withdraw my amendment.
Chairman Smith. Without objection.
We will now go to another amendment offered by the
gentleman from California, Mr.--I mean by Colorado, Mr.
Perlmutter.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment
number 27 at the desk.
Chairman Smith. And the clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 5503 offered by Mr. Perlmutter
of Colorado, amendment number 027.
Mr. Perlmutter. I ask for unanimous consent to dispense
with the reading of the amendment.
Chairman Smith. OK. Without objection.
And the gentleman is recognized to explain the amendment,
which is being handed out as we speak. OK. The gentleman is
recognized on the condition that he doesn't hold up a bumper
sticker that says Mars 2033. Oh, no, no, no, no, no.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I know all of you were
worried that I wouldn't hold up my bumper sticker of Mars 2033
today, but I just want to assure you we still have plenty, and
you're welcome to come to my office and get them for your cars.
As you've all heard me discuss on numerous occasions, we
had testimony a couple years ago detailing how the orbits of
Earth and Mars align in the year 2033 to be one of the shortest
distances which would allow a human mission to Mars to shave
off months off of the trip to that planet. Obviously, by
shortening the trip, it reduces the risks our astronauts might
face from radiation or who knows what else.
Today, we are building the Orion multipurpose crew vehicle
and the Space Launch System to carry us on this historic
journey, and American industry and our partners around the
world are working on the other technologies needed to
accomplish this feat.
Because this endeavor is not going to be just NASA or just
the United States, we're going to need public-private
partnerships and the international community and all work
together to get this done, as the Vice President discussed and
described in his speech yesterday in Colorado.
The missing piece to this puzzle right now is a requirement
for NASA to efficiently plan on how we would take advantage of
this opportunity in 2033, if not before, and what we need to be
doing on what timelines to get humans to Mars in 2033 or before
because we've had testimony from SpaceX and some others that
it's possible to get our astronauts to Mars even before 2033.
My amendment helps fix that problem by giving NASA the task to
better incorporate a 2033 mission into their long-term
exploration plans.
A number of people on this panel or in industry are excited
by talk from the Administration of going back to moon, but as
the Vice President said yesterday and as we've talked about on
this Committee, that could just be a steppingstone to our real
mission, which ultimately is to get to Mars. I think our--the
amendment that I propose accomplishes that, and I urge support
for the amendment. And with that, I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Perlmutter. I support the
amendment and yield to the gentleman from Texas, Chairman
Babin.
Mr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I thank the gentleman from Colorado for his amendment,
which I do support. Human exploration of Mars is a very
important--it is the big--the big goal, the ultimate goal is to
get to Mars by 2033, if not sooner. There are quite a few
things that need to be done science-wise and experimentation-
wise. Radiation is one of them, a lot of medical problems that
we need to address and remedy before we can get astronauts
there and safely back. But this amendment provides great
direction to NASA toward that ultimate end, and I fully support
it. I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Babin.
Is there anyone else who wishes to be--the gentlewoman from
Texas, the Ranking Member, is recognized.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the
last word.
Chairman Smith. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Johnson. I support the gentleman's--from Colorado's
amendment to privatize human exploration to Mars by 2033. While
other human--OK. Prioritize, yes. While other human exploration
endeavors that NASA engages in is--all have merit, and I do
believe that they should contribute toward the goal of going to
Mars.
Mr. Perlmutter's amendment recognizes the priority and also
provides a date for NASA to work toward. I think we've heard
this date before, and I encourage all of my colleagues to
support this amendment, and I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
If there's no further discussion on the amendment, the
question is on the Perlmutter amendment.
All in favor, say aye.
All opposed, no.
The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
The gentleman from Colorado has the next amendment as well,
and he is recognized for the purpose of offering that.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment
at the desk, number 26.
Chairman Smith. And the clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 5503 offered by Mr. Perlmutter
of Colorado, amendment number 026.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, and the gentleman from Colorado is
recognized to explain the amendment.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to offer
this and then withdraw it pursuant to the Chairman's committing
to the fact we can negotiate further as this bill moves along
in the process.
The bill--or the amendment that I proposed is to add $8
million to the National Space Grant College and Fellowship
Program or the Space Grant, and it allows--is part of a
competitive State and Federal partnership through a consortia
in all 50 States, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia.
And the program enable students to engage in outreach
activities and research projects that prepare them for STEM
careers and working with a wide array of industry partners in
their communities.
Space Grant consortia are catalysts in each State to help
grow the high-tech work force, and with nearly 1,000 partner
institutions, this program promotes aerospace and other NASA
and STEM education activities and helps sustain a pipeline of
students for innovative high-tech jobs.
When I speak with the aerospace industry in Colorado, one
of their biggest needs is a passionate and skilled work force,
and the Space Grant helps provide just that. We've held this
Space Grant level for a number of years now, even as we've seen
the NASA budget grow, and the purpose is to increase that Space
Grant line item.
And I would just--before I withdraw it, I would just say to
my friends from Texas that just about every single institution
in your State--and you have a lot of them--are--benefit in some
way or another from the Space Grant program. And I didn't know
the University of Texas has like a dozen different venues for
their institution, and each one of those benefits.
So it is a--it's an excellent program. It leverages both
State and Federal money. The various aerospace companies
benefit by it, but certainly NASA and our space program benefit
by it. I will withdraw my amendment, Mr. Chairman, so that we
can discuss it at greater length as the bill moves through the
process.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment is
withdrawn, but let me reassure the individual that I am and I
think a lot of us support the increase of $8 million. And just
so that all Members understand why I think this is going to be
able to be worked out, the gentleman from Colorado's amendment
increases the amount for this fellowship program from $40
million to $48 million. Again, I support that. The only
difference of opinion we have is whether the entire category is
increased from $100 million to $108 million, so that's, I
suspect, fairly easy to work out between now and the House
floor. But we do agree with the additional $8 million. The
question is whether to increase the overall account by $8
million. So I think we'll work that out.
I appreciate the gentleman withdrawing the amendment. And
we have two further amendments. We have a late amendment
offered by Mr. Foster and then another amendment offered by Mr.
Knight, and I believe that will conclude our markup.
The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Foster, is recognized for
the purpose of offering an amendment.
Mr. Foster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at
the desk.
Chairman Smith. All right. And the clerk will report the
amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 5503 offered by Mr. Foster of
Illinois, amendment number 093.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, and the gentleman is recognized to explain
the amendment.
Mr. Foster. Thank you, Chairman Smith.
My amendment is designed to encourage NASA to have a hard
look at reducing or eliminating the use of high-enriched
uranium, otherwise known as weapons-grade uranium, in future
missions. As you know, NASA is currently advancing various
nuclear reactors for deep space missions, particularly to Mars.
One of them is for spacecraft propulsion, which would likely
utilize low-enriched, that is non-weapons-grade uranium. The
second is for surface power, which would potentially utilize
high-enriched or weapons-grade uranium.
High-enriched uranium is one of the most dangerous
materials on earth because of its direct significance for
potential use in nuclear weapons and acts of nuclear terrorism,
which is why the elimination globally of stockpiles has been a
longstanding U.S. policy objective. It is also a material that
is very dangerous to handle during normal assembly when you can
have criticality incidents.
This is appreciated by NASA's Marshall Spaceflight Center,
which is leading the development of the propulsion reactor
system utilizing low-enriched uranium. An underappreciated
point about this is that the utilization of high-enriched
uranium in any space reactor would result in considerable
security-related cost and inhibit the participation of
commercial and academic partners for development of testing--
and testing and establish a very worrisome precedent for other
countries to use potentially large quantities of high-enriched
uranium in their own space programs.
And that is why I am introducing an amendment today to
require that the space nuclear power report include a cost
analysis of the use of high-enriched uranium versus low-
enriched uranium in power generation and other space
applications, including surface power and in space propulsion.
This cost analysis should include the long-term and especially
the security-related costs of the high-enriched versus low-
enriched uranium. This I think will help Congress understand
the true costs of these different nuclear power sources.
Thank you, and--for your consideration of this amendment,
and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Foster. I'll recognize
myself to speak on the amendment.
And I want to say to the gentleman from Illinois, as well
as other Members of the Committee, initially, I was going to
oppose this amendment because of its being submitted late and
being concerned about the process. I know the Ranking Member
and others have made comments about the process on the larger
bill, but again, in an effort at comity and bipartisanship
today, we're going to overlook the process and I endorse the
gentleman's amendment.
Is there anyone else--the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Babin,
is recognized.
Mr. Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate this amendment from Mr. Foster. We have
conducted a number of hearings on this very issue, and I
support this amendment.
Chairman Smith. OK. Thank you, Mr. Babin.
The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Norman, is
recognized.
Mr. Norman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is there a financial
impact on this study, and who would the study actually go to? I
yield back.
Chairman Smith. Does the gentleman from Illinois want to
respond?
Mr. Foster. Well, eventually Congress. I mean, that's a
decision we have to make. This is a decision that is--will be
partly economic and partly due to national security and
ultimately global security. You know, there's--it is almost
always true that using high-enriched uranium by itself from an
engineering point of view will be a less-expensive alternative.
However, there are real secondary costs and, you know, you have
to guard high-enriched uranium really carefully because a
terrorist group that gets their hands on high-enriched uranium
can unfortunately quite easily make a nuclear weapon.
And so that if you go to high-enriched uranium facility, at
least in the United States, you go through many levels of
barbed wire and personal ID and all this. All of those costs
will have to be absorbed by any future mission that
contemplates using high-enriched uranium for space
applications. And I think that's--that cost--you know, if you
visit these facilities, there's an impressive number of people
that draw their salaries protecting the high-enriched uranium
from potential terrorist attack.
And I just--when ultimately Congress makes that decision,
we should appreciate the secondary costs of that decision and I
think work hard on engineering and solutions using low-enriched
uranium.
Chairman Smith. Mr. Norman, do you yield back the balance
of your time? Does that satisfy you? OK, good.
The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, is recognized.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to voice
that I support the gentleman from Illinois' amendment, Dr.
Foster. He raised this issue during the hearing with NASA's
Acting Administrator, and I want to commend you for following
through because this is the next sensible step, and I thank
him.
Chairman Smith. OK. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
If there's no further discussion, the question is on the
Foster amendment.
All in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
We will now go to our last amendment to be offered by the
gentleman from California, Mr. Knight, and he is recognized for
that purpose.
Mr. Knight. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment at
the desk.
Chairman Smith. The clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 5503 offered by Mr. Knight of
California.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, and the gentleman from California is
recognized.
Mr. Knight. Mr. Chairman, very simply, as Mr. Perlmutter
always has his bumper sticker of 2033, I think we should have a
new bumper sticker because we are embarking on a new
demonstrator. It's the low-boom flight demonstrator, which will
show that we can fly over land supersonic and not have the
great big boom that everybody is accustomed to.
So if we're going to do that and we are going to put people
into airliners at some point and go over Mach 1, then we must
make sure that we have all the infrastructure and the chase
plane availability out at the test facility so that we can get
through this program and be flying supersonic at some point.
All of us who fly two times a week I'm sure are very interested
in this, and a low-boom supersonic demonstrator will be
something that we will all--all Americans will use at some
point.
So my amendment is very clear. Just make sure that we have
the operational and testing infrastructure there and the
availability of the chase planes for the low-boom supersonic
demonstrator. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Knight. We may have a little
bit of problem getting that on a bumper sticker because the
most succinct description I can come up with is ``boom-less
supersonic,'' but that that may not be bad if people know what
we're talking about.
I support the gentleman's amendment, appreciate his
offering that. Is there anyone else who wishes to be heard on
the amendment?
The gentleman----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Smith. OK. Let me go to Mr. McNerney and then to
the gentleman from California. Mr. McNerney.
Mr. McNerney. I just wanted to ask the gentleman from
California, most often when you see an amendment, it tells you
where it goes in the bill. I don't see any references in here.
Is that settled in some way?
Mr. Knight. Yes, I believe that is settled. It'll go into--
--
Chairman Smith. It'll be under the aeronautics title.
Mr. Knight [continuing]. The aeronautics part of that.
Chairman Smith. OK. We should have--thank you for that
clarification. It will go under the aeronautics title. We'll--
--
Mr. Knight. Yes.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, we'll amend the
amendment to make that clear.
Mr. McNerney. OK. I yield back.
Chairman Smith. OK. And who else wanted to be recognized?
OK. The gentleman from California, Mr.----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Knight, I'm very pleased that this
amendment has been offered. A lot of times we shortchange the
aeronautics end of all of this, and this I think is really
significant in the fact that if America is going to be a--not
just a space power but the No. 1 aviation and aeronautics power
in the world and where we're going to sell our future aircraft,
we need to have this type of fundamental research that's being
done. So I commend my colleague for this, and future aerospace
workers throughout the United States will thank him as well.
God bless.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
If there's no further discussion, all in favor of the
Knight amendment, say aye.
Opposed, nay.
The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to.
We are now going to proceed with the recorded vote that was
postponed on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Colorado, Mr. Perlmutter. It's number 28. The ayes prevailed by
voice vote, but a recorded vote was requested, and the clerk
will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Smith?
Chairman Smith. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes aye.
Mr. Lucas?
Mr. Lucas. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Lucas votes aye.
Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye.
Mr. Brooks?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Hultgren?
Mr. Hultgren. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Hultgren votes aye.
Mr. Posey?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Massie?
Mr. Massie. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Massie votes aye.
Mr. Bridenstine?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Weber?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Knight?
Mr. Knight. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Knight votes aye.
Mr. Babin?
Mr. Babin. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Babin votes aye.
Mrs. Comstock?
Mrs. Comstock. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr.--Mrs. Comstock votes aye.
Mr. Loudermilk?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Abraham?
Mr. Abraham. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Abraham votes aye.
Mr. Webster?
Mr. Webster. Maybe.
The Clerk. Mr. Webster votes aye?
Mr. Webster. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Webster votes yes.
Mr. Banks?
Mr. Banks. Nay.
The Clerk. Mr. Banks votes nay.
Mr. Biggs?
Mr. Biggs. Nay.
The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes nay.
Mr. Marshall?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Dunn?
Mr. Dunn. Yes. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Dunn votes aye.
Mr. Higgins?
Mr. Higgins. Nay.
The Clerk. Mr. Higgins votes nay.
Mr. Norman?
Mr. Norman. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Norman votes nay.
Ms. Johnson?
Ms. Johnson. Excuse me. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes aye.
Ms. Lofgren?
Ms. Lofgren. Yes.
The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren votes aye.
Mr. Lipinski?
Mr. Lipinski. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Lipinski votes aye.
Ms. Bonamici?
Ms. Bonamici. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Bonamici votes aye.
Mr. Bera?
Mr. Bera. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Bera votes aye.
Ms. Esty?
Ms. Esty. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Esty votes aye.
Mr. Veasey?
Mr. Veasey. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Veasey votes aye.
Mr. Beyer?
Mr. Beyer. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Beyer votes aye.
Ms. Rosen?
Ms. Rosen. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Rosen votes aye.
Mr. McNerney?
Mr. McNerney. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. McNerney votes aye.
Mr. Perlmutter?
Mr. Perlmutter. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Perlmutter votes aye.
Mr. Tonko?
Mr. Tonko. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Tonko votes aye.
Mr. Foster?
Mr. Foster. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Foster votes aye.
Mr. Takano?
Mr. Takano. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Takano votes aye.
Ms. Hanabusa?
Ms. Hanabusa. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Hanabusa votes aye.
Mr. Crist?
Mr. Crist. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Crist votes aye.
Chairman Smith. The--before the clerk reports, the
gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Massie, is recognized.
Mr. Massie. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
Chairman Smith. How is Mr. Massie recorded?
The Clerk. Mr. Massie is recorded as voting aye.
Mr. Massie. I'd like to be recorded as nay.
The Clerk. Mr. Massie votes nay.
Chairman Smith. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Posey?
Mr. Posey. Yes.
Chairman Smith. Votes aye. OK. The clerk will report when
she is ready.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, 27 Members voted aye, 5 Members
voted nay.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5710.294
Chairman Smith. The amendment--the ayes have it, and the
amendment is agreed to.
A reporting quorum being present, I move that the Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology report H.R. 5503, as amended,
to the House with the recommendation that the bill be approved.
The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 5503 to the
House, as amended.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, nay.
The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered reported
favorably.
Ms. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, could we have a recorded vote?
Chairman Smith. A recorded vote has been requested, and the
clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Smith?
Chairman Smith. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes aye.
Mr. Lucas?
Mr. Lucas. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Lucas votes aye.
Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye.
Mr. Brooks?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Hultgren?
Mr. Hultgren. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Hultgren votes aye.
Mr. Posey?
Mr. Posey. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Posey votes aye.
Mr. Massie?
Mr. Massie. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Massie votes aye.
Mr. Bridenstine?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Weber?
Mr. Weber. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Weber votes aye.
Mr. Knight?
Mr. Knight. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Knight votes aye.
Mr. Babin?
Mr. Babin. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Babin votes aye.
Mrs. Comstock?
Mrs. Comstock. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Comstock votes aye.
Mr. Loudermilk?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Abraham?
Mr. Abraham. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Abraham votes aye.
Mr. Webster?
Mr. Webster. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Webster votes aye.
Mr. Banks?
Mr. Banks. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Banks votes aye.
Mr. Biggs?
Mr. Biggs. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes aye.
Mr. Marshall?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Dunn?
Mr. Dunn. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Dunn votes aye.
Mr. Higgins?
Mr. Higgins. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Higgins votes aye.
Mr. Norman?
Mr. Norman. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Norman votes aye.
Ms. Johnson?
Ms. Johnson. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes aye.
Ms. Lofgren?
Ms. Lofgren. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren votes nay.
Mr. Lipinski?
Mr. Lipinski. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Lipinski votes aye.
Ms. Bonamici?
Ms. Bonamici. Nay.
The Clerk. Ms. Bonamici votes nay.
Mr. Bera?
Mr. Bera. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Bera votes aye.
Ms. Esty?
Ms. Esty. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Esty votes aye.
Mr. Veasey?
Mr. Veasey. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Veasey votes aye.
Mr. Beyer?
Mr. Beyer. Nay.
The Clerk. Mr. Beyer votes nay.
Ms. Rosen?
Ms. Rosen. Nay.
The Clerk. Ms. Rosen votes nay.
Mr. McNerney?
Mr. McNerney. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. McNerney votes aye.
Mr. Perlmutter?
Mr. Perlmutter. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Perlmutter votes aye.
Mr. Tonko?
Mr. Tonko. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Tonko votes nay.
Mr. Foster?
Mr. Foster. Nay.
The Clerk. Mr. Foster votes nay.
Mr. Takano?
Mr. Takano. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Takano votes nay.
Ms. Hanabusa?
Ms. Hanabusa. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Hanabusa votes aye.
Mr. Crist?
Mr. Crist. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Crist votes aye.
Chairman Smith. And the clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, 26 Members voted aye, 7 Members
voted nay.
Chairman Smith. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered
reported favorably.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5710.295
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon
the table. H.R. 5503 is ordered reported to the House. I ask
unanimous consent that staff be authorized to make any
necessary technical and conforming changes. Without objection,
so ordered.
Before we adjourn, real quickly, I thank Members for their
participation. We had a great turnout today. And I thank those
who decided to vote aye in favor of this bipartisan bill, which
I hope and expect will increase its prospects of being enacted.
So I thank everyone for their participation regardless.
If there's no further discussion, that completes our
business, and this concludes the Science Committee markup.
Without objection, the Committee stands adjourned, and Alden is
going to come up here and hit the gavel for me.
[Whereupon, at 12:21 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
H.R. 5509, Amendment Roster, H.R. 5503, Amendment Roster
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE
MARKUPS: H.R. 5905, DEPARTMENT
OF ENERGY SCIENCE AND
INNOVATION ACT OF 2018;
H.R. 5907, NATIONAL INNOVATION
MODERNIZATION BY LABORATORY
EMPOWERMENT ACT; AND
H.R. 5906, ARPA-E ACT OF 2018
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 23, 2018
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:36 a.m., in
room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar
Smith [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Chairman Smith. The Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recess at any time.
Pursuant to Committee Rule II(e) and House Rule
XI(2)(h)(4), the Chair announces that he may postpone roll call
votes.
Today we meet to consider H.R. 5905, the Department of
Energy Science and Innovation Act of 2018; H.R. 5907, the
National Innovation Modernization by Laboratory Empowerment
Act; and H.R. 5906, the ARPA-E Act of 2018. I'll recognize
myself for an opening statement.
Today we consider these three energy bills. Together, they
prioritize basic science research, modernize and increase the
productivity of the DOE national labs, and enable the
development of new technologies for the next generation.
The first bill is H.R. 5905, the Department of Energy
Science and Innovation Act of 2018, sponsored by Energy
Subcommittee Chairman Randy Weber and Representative Zoe
Lofgren. This legislation authorizes the basic research
programs within the DOE Office of Science for fiscal years 2018
and 2019. It includes research in basic energy sciences,
advanced scientific computing, high-energy physics, biological
and environmental research, fusion energy science, and nuclear
physics. These basic research programs are the core mission of
the Department and will lead to scientific discoveries that
will maintain U.S. leadership in technology. The bill
authorizes basic research programs in solar fuels, electricity
storage, bioenergy research, exascale computing, and low-dose
radiation. It also authorizes Office of Science funding for
upgrades and construction of seven high-priority user
facilities at DOE national labs. These infrastructure and
program investments are crucial to ensuring America remains a
leader in basic research and innovation.
This legislation is the product of over 4 years of
bipartisan work by the Science Committee to advance basic
research and set clear science priorities for the Department of
Energy. It builds on the achievements of the House-passed H.R.
589, the Department of Energy Research and Innovation Act, and
incorporates four bipartisan Science Committee infrastructure
bills that passed the House in February.
One example of the central missions authorized in the DOE
Science and Innovation Act is the Exascale Computing program.
Developing an exascale system is critical to enabling
scientific discovery, strengthening national security, and
promoting U.S. industrial competitiveness. Exascale computing
will have real-world benefits for American industry and entice
the best researchers in the world to conduct groundbreaking
science at the DOE labs.
In order to strengthen U.S. energy independence, this
legislation also provides support for fusion energy sciences.
When commercial fusion becomes available, it will revolutionize
the energy market and could significantly reduce global carbon
emissions.
This bill authorizes funds for U.S. contributions to the
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, or ITER,
project, a critical step to achieving commercial fusion energy.
I again thank Representative Weber as well as
Representative Lofgren for their longstanding support of basic
research and investments in our world class science facilities
at the DOE national labs.
The next energy bill is H.R. 5907, the National Innovation
Modernization by Laboratory Empowerment Act. This legislation
directs the Secretary to provide signature authority to the
directors of the national laboratories, allowing lab directors
to make decisions on cooperative agreements with industry where
the total cost is less than $1 million. This provides the labs
with more flexibility and removes red tape that makes it
difficult for businesses to partner with the labs. DOE national
labs can provide the private sector with access to research
infrastructure as they develop new technologies but a lengthy
approval process can smother industry's interest. This bill
gives the labs freedom to pursue agreements that will increase
U.S. competitiveness and maintain our technology leadership.
I want to thank this bill's sponsors, Representative Randy
Hultgren and Representative Ed Perlmutter, for their efforts on
this initiative.
H.R. 5906, the ARPA-E Act of 2018, is our third and last
energy bill today. H.R. 5906, sponsored by Science Committee
Vice Chairman Frank Lucas and Ranking Member Eddie Bernice
Johnson, establishes DOE policy for the Advanced Research
Projects Agency-Energy program. This legislation expands the
mission of ARPA-E, and allows the program to develop
transformative science and technology solutions to address
energy, environmental, economic, and national security
challenges. Notably, this includes allowing ARPA-E to develop
technologies to address the management, clean-up, and disposal
of nuclear waste.
This bill also maximizes the Department's resources. It
requires ARPA-E to coordinate with other DOE programs and avoid
duplication and ensures that ARPA-E grants go to innovative
technologies that would not otherwise be funded by the private
sector.
Together, these three bills prioritize critical research
and outline important reforms to DOE programs within Science
Committee jurisdiction.
Prepared Statement of Chairman Smith
Today we will consider three energy bills. Together, they
prioritize basic science research, modernize and increase the
productivity of the Department of Energy (DOE) national labs
and enable the development of new technologies for the next
generation.
The first bill is H.R. 5905, the Department of Energy
Science and Innovation Act of 2018, sponsored by Energy
Subcommittee Chairman Randy Weber and Rep. Zoe Lofgren. This
legislation authorizes the basic research programs within the
DOE Office of Science for fiscal years 2018 and 2019. It
includes research in basic energy sciences, advanced scientific
computing, high energy physics, biological and environmental
research, fusion energy science and nuclear physics.
These basic research programs are the core mission of the
department and will lead to scientific discoveries that will
maintain U.S. leadership in technology.
This bill authorizes basic research programs in solar
fuels, electricity storage, bioenergy research, exascale
computing and low dose radiation. It also authorizes Office of
Science funding for upgrades and construction of seven high-
priority user facilities at DOE national labs. These
infrastructure and program investments are crucial to ensuring
America remains a leader in basic research and innovation.
This legislation is the product of over four years of
bipartisan work by the Science Committee to advance basic
research and set clear science priorities for the Department of
Energy.
It builds on the achievements of the House passed H.R. 589,
the Department of Energy Research and Innovation Act, and
incorporates four bipartisan Science Committee infrastructure
bills that passed the House in February.
One example of the central missions authorized in the DOE
Science and Innovation Act is the Exascale Computing Program.
Developing an exascale system is critical to enabling
scientific discovery, strengthening national security and
promoting U.S. industrial competitiveness. Exascale computing
will have real world benefits for American industry and entice
the best researchers in the world to conduct groundbreaking
science at the DOE labs.
In order to strengthen U.S. energy independence, this
legislation also provides support for fusion energy sciences.
When commercial fusion becomes available, it will revolutionize
the energy market and could significantly reduce global carbon
emissions.
This bill authorizes funds for U.S. contributions to the
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER)
project, a critical step to achieving commercial fusion energy.
I again thank Rep. Weber as well as Rep. Lofgren for their
long-standing support of basic research and investments in our
world class science facilities at the DOE national labs.
The next energy bill is H.R. 5907, the National Innovation
Modernization by Laboratory Empowerment (NIMBLE) Act.
This legislation directs the secretary to provide signature
authority to the directors of the national laboratories,
allowing lab directors to make decisions on cooperative
agreements with industry where the total cost is less than $1
million.
This provides the labs with more flexibility and removes
red tape that makes it difficult for businesses to partner with
the labs. DOE national labs can provide the private sector with
access to research infrastructure as they develop new
technologies. But a lengthy approval process can smother
industry's interest. This bill gives the labs freedom to pursue
agreements that will increase U.S. competitiveness and maintain
our technology leadership.
I want to thank this bill's sponsors, Rep. Randy Hultgren
and Rep. Ed Perlmutter, for their efforts on this initiative.
H.R. 5906, the ARPA-E Act of 2018 is our third energy bill
today.
H.R. 5906, sponsored by Science Committee Vice Chairman
Frank Lucas and Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson,
establishes DOE policy for the Advanced Research Projects
Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) program.
This legislation expands the mission of ARPA-E, and allows
the program to develop transformative science and technology
solutions to address energy, environmental, economic and
national security challenges. Notably, this includes allowing
ARPA-E to develop technologies to address the management,
clean-up, and disposal of nuclear waste.
This bill also maximizes the department's resources. It
requires ARPA-E to coordinate with other DOE programs and avoid
duplication and ensures that ARPA-E grants go to innovative
technologies that would not otherwise be funded by the private
sector.
Together, these three bills prioritize critical research
and outline important reforms to DOE programs within Science
Committee jurisdiction.
Chairman Smith. That concludes my opening statement, and
the Ranking Member, the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, is
recognized for hers.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding
today's markup of three important bills that support science
and innovation at Department of Energy. The bills that we are
considering today reflect many bipartisan priorities, and I
hope each of them will receive strong support from Committee
Members on both sides of the aisle today.
The first bill we are considering, the Department of Energy
Science and Innovation Act of 2018, provides important
statutory direction to one of the most critical agencies that
this Committee oversees. The Department of Energy's Office of
Science funds a wide range of research and development that has
far-reaching impacts across DOE, the Federal Government,
academia, and industry. Much of this language is derived from
previous bipartisan, bicameral agreements that were included in
H.R. 589, the House-passed Department of Energy Research and
Innovation Act of 2017. As we await Senate action on that
legislation, I support moving forward with additional language
included in today's bill that would authorize upgrades to
important Office of Science user facilities, direct DOE to
provide sufficient support to maintain our commitments to the
ITER international fusion project, and provide statutory
authority to fund low-dose radiation research as well as a
promising computational materials initiative at our national
labs. I am also happy to see robust funding levels included in
this bipartisan bill, particularly for the Biological and
Environmental Research program, which supports critical
research to reduce uncertainties and better understand the
impacts of climate change.
If signed into law, I want to make it clear that I expect
the Department of Energy to appropriately fund and steward all
of these activities, including important work in environmental
systems modeling. However, amidst all of the positive aspects
of this bill, I must say that I am a little disappointed in the
process that we used to get to this markup. With a more
deliberative and collaborative process, we certainly could have
produced more comprehensive, well-vetted language that better
reflects input from national laboratories, academic
institutions, and industry on important projects and programs
funded by the Office of Science. Such a process would have made
a good bill better.
The next bill we are considering is the National Innovation
Modernization by Laboratory Empowerment Act. This bill would
provide our national laboratories with the authority to
directly enter into certain research agreements with the
private sector as long as those activities align with the
laboratories' strategic plans approved by the Department of
Energy. This bill also includes appropriate safeguards to
prevent waste, fraud, or abuse. I am happy to see us moving
forward once again with this important policy change.
The ARPA-E Act of 2018 is a welcome development from my
perspective. I understand some of my Majority colleagues have
not always been the biggest supporters of ARPA-E, but after
years of successes and several independent assessments praising
the agency's work, we are finally passing a bill out of this
Committee reauthorizing this now-vital component of our energy
innovation pipeline. This bill preserves the mission and form
of ARPA-E, while enabling it to also consider funding projects
or technologies that can address DOE'' monumental and
longstanding challenge of environmental cleanup at the legacy
sites of the Manhattan Project.
It also includes language from a bipartisan ARPA-E
Reauthorization Act that I introduced last year, which would
ensure that sensitive business information collected by the
agency remains protected. This will enable even greater private
sector engagement in its programs.
ARPA-E projects have attracted more than $2.6 billion in
private-sector follow-on funding. Seventy-one projects have
formed new companies, and 109 have gone on to partner with
other government agencies to further their research.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman and Congressman Lucas,
for embracing ARPA-E's innovative model and joining me in
supporting its reauthorization.
I thank you, and I yield back.
Prepared Statement of Ms. Johnson
Thank you, Chairman Smith, for holding today's markup of
three important bills that support science and innovation at
DOE. The bills that we are considering today reflect many
bipartisan priorities and I hope each of them will receive
strong support from Committee Members on both sides of the
aisle today. The first bill we are considering, the Department
of Energy Science and Innovation Act of 2018 provides important
statutory direction to one of the most critical agencies that
this Committee oversees. The Department of Energy's Office of
Science funds a wide-range of research and development that has
far-reaching impacts across DOE, the federal government,
academia, and industry. Much of this language is derived from
previous bipartisan, bicameral agreements that were included in
H.R. 589, the House-passed Department of Energy Research and
Innovation Act of 2017.
As we await Senate action on that legislation, I support
moving forward with additional language included in today's
bill that would authorize upgrades to important Office of
Science user facilities, direct DOE to provide sufficient
support to maintain our commitments to the ITER international
fusion project, and provide statutory authority to fund low-
dose radiation research as well as a promising computational
materials initiative at our national labs.
I am also happy to see robust funding levels included in
this bipartisan bill, particularly for the Biological and
Environmental Research program, which supports critical
research to reduce uncertainties and better understand the
impacts of climate change. If signed into law, I want to make
it clear that I expect the Department of Energy to
appropriately fund and steward all of these activities,
including important work in environmental systems modeling.
However, amidst all the positive aspects of this bill, I
must say that I am a little disappointed in the process that we
used to get to this markup. With a more deliberative and
collaborative process, we certainly could have produced more
comprehensive, well-vetted language that better reflects input
from national laboratories, academic institutions, and industry
on important projects and programs funded by the Office of
Science. Such a process would have made a good bill better.
The next bill we are considering is the National Innovation
Modernization by Laboratory Empowerment Act. This bill would
provide our national laboratories with the authority to
directly enter into certain research agreements with the
private sector as long as those activities align with the
laboratories' strategic plans approved by the Department of
Energy. This bill also includes appropriate safeguards to
prevent waste, fraud, or abuse. I am happy to see us moving
forward once again with this important policy change.
The ARPA-E Act of 2018 is a welcome development from my
perspective. I understand some of my Majority colleagues have
not always been the biggest supporters of ARPA-E, but after
years of successes and several independent assessments praising
the agency's work, we are finally passing a bill out of this
Committee reauthorizing this now-vital component of our energy
innovation pipeline.
This bill preserves the mission and form of ARPA-E, while
enabling it to also consider funding projects or technologies
that can address DOE's monumental and longstanding challenge of
environmental cleanup at the legacy sites of the Manhattan
Project. It also includes language from a bipartisan ARPA-E
Reauthorization Act that I introduced last year which would
ensure that sensitive business information collected by the
agency remains protected. This will enable even greater private
sector engagement in its programs.
ARPA-E projects have attracted more than 2.6 billion
dollars in private sector follow-on funding. 71 projects have
formed new companies and 109 have gone on to partner with other
government agencies to further their research. I want to thank
the Chairman and Congressman Lucas for embracing ARPA-E's
innovative model and joining me in supporting its
reauthorization.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
H.R. 5905
Chairman Smith. Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R.
5905, the Department of Energy Science and Innovation Act of
2018, and the clerk will report the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 5905, a bill to authorize basic research
programs in the Department of Energy Office of Science for
fiscal years 2018 and 2019.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the bill is considered
as read and open for amendment at any point.
I'll recognize the bill's sponsor, the gentleman from
Texas, the Chairman of the Energy Committee, Mr. Weber.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
speak on behalf of my bill, H.R. 5905, the Department of Energy
Science and Innovation Act of 2018.
This legislation authorizes the Department of Energy's
Office of Science programs for fiscal years 2018 and 2019. It
also authorizes upgrades and new construction of major user
facilities at Department of Energy national labs and
universities.
Over the past 4 years, the Energy Subcommittee has held
hearings, met with stakeholders, and worked extensively with
our colleagues to draft the language included in today's
legislation. We spoke with lab directors, DOE officials,
academia, and industry about the right priorities for the
Office of Science. The result was a series of bills that the
Science Committee has advanced this Congress, including H.R.
589, H.R. 4376, H.R. 4377, and H.R. 4675.
The legislation we will consider today combines these bills
to form a comprehensive, bipartisan authorization of the
Department's basic science research. This includes over $6
billion in fundamental research and discovery science, largely
performed at DOE national laboratories and user facilities
around the country.
Two weeks ago, I, along with several of my Science
Committee colleagues, had the opportunity to visit a number of
these facilities at Argonne National Laboratory and Fermi
National Accelerator Laboratory. We got to see firsthand the
incredible work that these men and women do not only for our
country but for the world. And I have to agree with Secretary
Perry when he testified before this Committee earlier this
month that these labs are, and I quote, ``incubators of
innovation, and they are among America's greatest treasures.''
High-energy physics, advanced scientific computing, focusing on
basic and fundamental research at our national labs, these all
provide the best opportunity for innovation and economic
growth. The DOE Science and Innovation Act authorizes funding
for critical infrastructure projects at these national labs.
In the Basic Energy Sciences program, it authorizes
upgrades to world-leading x-ray light source facilities around
the country, like the Advanced Photon Source at Argonne
National Laboratory, and the LINAC Coherent Light Source at
SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory. These facilities give
American scientists the tools they need to study the structure
and behavior of physical and biological materials, enabling
innovation in many fields, including creating new materials for
industry and developing new pharmaceuticals.
This legislation also authorizes the construction of new
DOE research facilities in nuclear physics and high-energy
physics. This includes construction of the Facility for Rare
Isotope Beams, or FRIB, at Michigan State University, which
will enable critical nuclear physics research across a wide
breadth of fields, ranging from astrophysics to medicine. It'll
also the construction of the Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility at
Fermilab, which is an internationally coordinated project
designed to build the world's highest intensity neutrino beam.
The research at this facility will help shed light on the
universe and its origins.
This bill also specifically authorizes basic research in
fields that are critical to U.S. dominance in science and
technology. It authorizes research in exascale computing, in
electricity storage, and fusion energy sciences. It establishes
a DOE Exascale Computing program, a low-dose radiation research
program, and programs for managing our Energy Frontier Research
Centers and Bioenergy Research Centers and ensures that we
fulfill our commitments to the ITER project for fiscal years
2018 as well as 2019.
Significant investments in basic science research by
foreign countries like China threaten America's global standing
as the leader in scientific knowledge. To maintain our
competitive advantage as the world leader in science, we must
continue to support this research and the research
infrastructure that will lead to next-generation energy
technologies.
H.R. 5905 is a commonsense bill that will maintain American
leadership in science.
I want to thank Chairman Smith, Representative Lofgren,
Vice Chairman Lucas, and many of my Science Committee
colleagues for cosponsoring this important legislation. I'm
grateful for the opportunity to work with the Members of this
Committee to guide research that will help America compete
around the world.
I encourage my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Prepared Statement of Mr. Weber
Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to speak on
behalf of my bill, H.R. 5905, the Department of Energy Science
and Innovation Act of 2018.
This legislation authorizes the Department of Energy's
Office of Science programs for fiscal years 2018 and 2019. It
also authorizes upgrades and new construction of major user
facilities at Department of Energy (DOE) national labs and
universities.
Over the past four years, the Energy Subcommittee has held
hearings, met with stakeholders, and worked extensively with
our colleagues to draft the language included in today's
legislation. We spoke with lab directors, DOE officials,
academia and industry about the right priorities for the Office
of Science.
The result was a series of bills that the Science Committee
has advanced this Congress, including H.R. 589, H.R. 4376, H.R.
4377 and H.R. 4675.
The legislation we will consider today combines these bills
to form a comprehensive, bipartisan authorization of the
department's basic science research. This includes over $6
billion in fundamental research and discovery science, largely
performed at DOE national laboratories and user facilities
around the country.
Two weeks ago, I, along with several of my Science
Committee colleagues, had the opportunity to visit a number of
these facilities at Argonne National Laboratory and Fermi
National Accelerator Laboratory. We got to see first-hand the
incredible work that these men and women do for our country and
for the world. I have to agree with Secretary Perry when he
testified before this committee earlier this month that these
labs are ``incubators of innovation, and they are among
America's greatest treasures.''
From high energy physics to advanced scientific computing,
focusing on basic and fundamental research at our national labs
provides the best opportunity for innovation and economic
growth.
The DOE Science and Innovation Act authorizes funding for
critical infrastructure projects at these national labs. In the
Basic Energy Sciences program, it authorizes upgrades to world-
leading x-ray light source facilities around the country, like
the
Advanced Photon Source at Argonne National Laboratory, and
the LINAC Coherent Light Source at SLAC National Accelerator
Laboratory.
These facilities give American scientists the tools they
need to study the structure and behavior of physical and
biological materials, enabling innovation in many fields,
including creating new materials for industry and developing
new pharmaceuticals.
This legislation also authorizes the construction of new
DOE research facilities in nuclear physics and high energy
physics.
This includes construction of the Facility for Rare Isotope
Beams (FRIB) at Michigan State University, which will enable
critical nuclear physics research across a wide breadth of
fields, ranging from astrophysics to medicine, and the
construction of the Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility at
Fermilab, an internationally coordinated project designed to
build the world's highest intensity neutrino beam. The research
at this facility will help shed light on the universe and its
origins.
This bill also specifically authorizes basic research in
fields that are critical to U.S. dominance in science and
technology. It authorizes research in exascale computing,
electricity storage and fusion energy sciences. It establishes
a DOE Exascale Computing Program, a low dose radiation research
program, and programs for managing our Energy Frontier Research
Centers and Bioenergy Research Centers and ensures that we
fulfill our commitments to the ITER project for fiscal years
2018 and 2019.
Significant investments in basic science research by
foreign countries, like China, threaten America's global
standing as the leader in scientific knowledge. To maintain our
competitive advantage as a world leader in science, we must
continue to support the research, and the research
infrastructure, that will lead to next generation energy
technologies.
H.R. 5905 is a common sense bill that will maintain
American leadership in science. I want to thank Chairman Smith,
Rep. Lofgren, Vice Chairman Lucas and many of my Science
Committee colleagues for cosponsoring this important
legislation. I'm grateful for the opportunity to work with the
members of this committee to guide research that will help
America compete around the world.
I encourage my colleagues to support this bill and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Weber, and I'm going to go
first to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Foster, and then to
the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko.
Mr. Foster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the
last word.
Chairman Smith. The gentleman's recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Foster. Thank you again, Chairman Smith and Ranking
Member Johnson, for holding this markup and for allowing me to
say a few words.
I'm pleased to see that this comprehensive bill authorizing
funding for the Department of Energy Office of Science includes
two important projects: Argonne's Advanced Photon Source and
Fermilab's Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility. I especially want
to thank my colleague, Mr. Weber, for sponsoring this important
legislation, and also for leading a delegation of Science
Committee Members to visit Fermilab and Argonne a few weeks
ago, and several of my colleagues on this Committee saw
firsthand on that congressional delegation trip the cutting-
edge science conducted at Argonne and at the user facilities
they support are critical to U.S. industry and academic
science.
Argonne's Advanced Photon Source, or APS, supports
discovery science and market-driven research on materials,
chemistry, physics, and biology. The APS is a user facility for
thousands of academic national lab and industry scientists
across the country. The APS has allowed scientists to visualize
everything from nanoscale materials to high-speed liquid jets.
The APS also facilitates development of products from solar
shingles to drugs to treat HIV. The upgrade authorized in this
bill will leverage existing infrastructure to create a world-
leading facility at substantially less cost than a new
facility. This upgrade will enable the APS to become the
ultimate 3D microscope, opening up scientific frontiers at the
nanoscale that are completely inaccessible today. Without it,
the United States will lose its global leadership in x-ray
science.
The second critical project that this bill authorizes is
the LBNF DUNE project, which is critical to maintaining U.S.
leadership in high-energy physics and fundamental science. The
Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility at Fermilab in Batavia,
Illinois, will power the Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment
at the Sanford Underground Research Facility in Lead, South
Dakota. LBNF DUNE will bring us great understanding of
neutrinos, the most abundant and mysterious matter particles in
the universe. LBNF DUNE will also be the first major
international mega science project to be hosted by the
Department of Energy in the United States. The LBNF DUNE
international collaboration involves 1,000 scientists and
engineers from 30 countries around the world.
On the congressional delegation tour of Fermilab earlier
this month, several of my colleagues on the Science Committee
were able to personally see some of the high-tech leading-edge
work being done in high-energy physics and to meet many of my
old friends from Argonne and Fermilab, where I worked for over
20 years. The work at these national labs is critical to
maintaining our U.S. scientific leadership, and in fact,
earlier this year I was proud to personally escort Secretary
Perry on his visits to both Argonne and Fermilab and was
thrilled to see his genuine enthusiasm for the science that is
done there. This bill takes the important step of authorizing
the funding for these projects in addition to providing
comprehensive authorization language for the DOE Office of
Science.
Science requires long-term and sustained funding in order
to plan ahead and ensure opportunities are not missed,
especially for large-scale, long-term projects such as these.
This bill is an----
[Audio malfunction in hearing room]
Ms. Lofgren [continuing]. Like Lawrence Berkeley and SLAC
near my district but also excellent facilities across the
United States. They are Centers of Innovation in many subjects,
and especially for energy, used by scientists, researchers,
students, even the private sector. There's a broad spectrum of
topics where we see advances.
Now, it's no secret to Members of this Committee that I've
been a longtime supporter and advocate for fusion energy
research. A fusion has such a potential to provide abundant,
reliable, emission-free, and practically limitless energy that
would satisfy our electricity needs for the foreseeable future.
It's a huge challenge. We have achieved fusion but not ignition
so this is basically a research project at this point, but the
potential benefits are so enormous for our world that it's
important that the research be continued, and that's an
additional reason why I am so pleased to be the Democratic
cosponsor of this bill. In particular, I'm happy to see that it
would establish an inertial fusion energy program that's
consistent with the 2013 National Academies report and include
inertial and other innovative fusion concepts in the
development of a comprehensive strategic plan for fusion, also
has been mentioned, sufficient support for both the U.S.
commitments to ITER's international fusion project as well as
the non-ITER portions of the fusion budget.
I want to thank Mr. Weber for introducing this bill and
just say I'm proud to be the lead Democratic sponsor of this
bill, and I thank both Mr. Weber and the Chairman for
recognizing me.
I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Lofgren.
And the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, is recognized.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to strike the last
word.
Chairman Smith. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking
Member Johnson, for this bill package that speaks significantly
to our future, I believe.
Before I offer my comments, I would that I could recognize
Cheyenne, who is our rep from the foster family program that's
shadowing many of us today, and I thank Cheyenne for being
here.
The only way America will meet our greatest energy
challenges is with smart, visionary investments in research and
development. Our Federal Government has an exemplary record of
partnering with universities and private-sector leaders to
drive innovation including critical smartphone technologies and
the framework for the internet.
Groundbreaking advances by America's private sector and
university communities are propelled and even made possible by
a public R&D portfolio that covers the spectrum from basic
science to technology development, testing and deployment.
Ongoing support of these smart investments is essential to
driving down costs and improving performance of advanced and
everyday energy technologies.
I am relieved to be working on a bipartisan basis to move
this legislation forward to support American science and energy
innovation. The Office of Science at DOE supports critical work
that is producing major breakthroughs in science, in energy
innovation, and, indeed, in national security.
ARPA-E continues to play a critical role in expanding our
portfolio of innovation programs and lowering risk on projects
that advance the horizon of our discovery, a vial pathfinding
tool for our future economy and national security that simply
would not be supported by the private sector. Failing to
adequately support and fund these critical initiatives will
undermine development of our next generation of scientists and
engineers and the transformative achievements they will be
responsible for, and our Nation will future lose its standing
as a world leader in energy innovation. We must press forward
and innovate.
Supporting such innovation must also mean support for
adequate funding. I hope that this Committee continues to
invest in America's future and redouble our bipartisan
commitment to this critical innovation.
And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Tonko.
The only amendment to H.R. 5905 on the roster that I'm
aware of is a Manager's Amendment offered by the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Weber, and he's recognized for that purpose.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at
the desk.
Chairman Smith. And the clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to Department of Energy and Science
Innovation Act of 2018 offered by Mr. Weber of Texas, amendment
#019.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, and the gentleman is recognized to explain
his amendment.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Chairman.
This amendment provides for technical changes to the
legislation. I do appreciate the opportunity to work with the
Minority and to identify these changes prior to today's markup
and for their support of this important legislation authorizing
the Department of Energy Office of Science. I encourage my
colleagues to support the amendment, and with that, Mr.
Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Weber, and the Ranking
Member is recognized.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to strike
the last word.
Chairman Smith. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. I support this Manager's
Amendment, which makes some positive changes to the bill.
I'd also like to take a moment to thank both Chairman Smith
and Subcommittee Chairman Weber and their staffs for working
with us on this amendment. It's a good amendment to a good
bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
If there's no further discussion on the amendment, the
question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by Mr. Weber.
All in favor, say aye.
Those opposed, say no.
The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
If there are no further amendments, a reporting quorum
being present, I move that the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology report H.R. 5905 to the House as amended with the
recommendation that the bill be approved.
The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 5905 to the
House as amended.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, nay.
The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered reported
favorably.
Without objection, the Motion to Reconsider is laid upon
the table. H.R. 5905 is ordered reported to the House, and I
ask unanimous consent that staff be authorized to make any
necessary technical and conforming changes. Without objection,
so ordered.
H.R. 5907
Chairman Smith. Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R.
5907, the National Innovation Modernization by Laboratory
Empowerment Act, and the clerk will report the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 5907, a bill to provide Directors of the
National Laboratories signature authority for certain
agreements, and for other purposes.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the bill is considered
as read and open for amendment at any point.
Chairman Smith. I'll recognize the bill's sponsor, Mr.
Hultgren, for his opening statement.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you, Chairman, for this markup today
and for all your help on this. I'd also like to thank the
distinguished Chairman of the Energy Subcommittee for his help
on the underlying bill. I'd also like to thank my colleague
from Colorado, Mr. Perlmutter, for his help on this bipartisan
legislation that would help our national labs better work with
all businesses, but especially small businesses, by being more
nimble and being able to quickly react to the needs of the
private sector working with the labs.
In the previous Congress, this House passed legislation I
introduced with the gentleman from Colorado, which would do a
number of things to modernize the national laboratories,
including the provision we have introduced as a standalone
today. In the 113th Congress, this House passed similar
legislation without opposition.
I've had the opportunity to visit a number of our national
laboratories, and the thing they all have in common is the
unique expertise they house and the world-leading instruments
they maintain. They truly are the crown jewel in our research
ecosystem, and this legislation would make it easier to access
the labs for the general public.
One of the primary issues I have heard about, with the
public trying to work with our laboratories, is the time it
takes for many agreements to be worked out, often taking months
after laboratory approval before final sign-off from the
Department. Make no mistake: I believe oversight of our
national labs by the Department is vital, and the labs must be
aligned under the mission of the Department, but I do believe
there should be some level of trust given to the labs to enter
into smaller agreements. With this legislation, signature
authority for cooperative research and development agreements,
work-for-other agreements, and other agreements determined
appropriate by DOE would be given to the labs so long as they
totaled less than $1 million. With the increased reporting
requirements for these agreements, I believe this strikes the
proper balance for oversight with the Department and the
intentions of Congress in creating the government-owned,
contractor-operated model of the national labs.
I'm grateful for the Secretary at our recent hearing
signaling his willingness to work with this idea, and I believe
it fits with the Administration's priorities in removing red
tape where it's not needed and freeing the private sector up to
innovate and bring new ideas to market.
So again, thank you, Chairman. I want to thank also the
gentleman from Colorado and all of my colleagues on the
Committee for their support, and I urge passage of this
important legislation.
With that, I yield back.
Prepared Statement of Mr. Hultgren
Thank you Chairman Smith for this markup today. And I would
like to thank the distinguished chairman of the Energy
Subcommittee for his help on the underlying bill.
I'd also like to thank my colleague from Colorado, Mr.
Perlmutter, for his help on this bipartisan legislation that
would help our national labs better work with all businesses-
but especially small businesses-by being more nimble and
quickly react to the needs of the private sector working with
the labs.
In the previous Congress, this House passed legislation I
introduced with the gentleman from Colorado which would do a
number of things to modernize the national laboratories,
including the provision we have introduced as a standalone
today.
In the 113th Congress, this House passed similar
legislation without opposition.
I've had the opportunity to visit a number of our national
laboratories, and the thing they all have in common is the
unique expertise they house and the world-leading instruments
they maintain.
They truly are the crown jewel in our research ecosystem,
and this legislation would make it easier to access the labs
for the general public.
One of the primary issues I have heard about, with the
public trying to work with our laboratories, is the time it
takes for many agreements to be worked out, often taking months
after laboratory approval before final sign-off from the
department.
Make no mistake, I believe oversight of our national labs
by the department is vital, and the labs must be aligned under
the mission of the department, but I do believe there should be
some level of trust given to the labs to enter into smaller
agreements.
With this legislation, signature authority for cooperative
research and development agreements, work-for-other agreements
and other agreements determined appropriate by DOE, would be
given to the labs so long as they totaled less than $1 million.
With the increased reporting requirements for these
agreements, I believe this strikes the proper balance for
oversight with the department and the intentions of Congress in
creating the government-owned, contractor-operated model of the
national labs.
I am grateful for the secretary at our recent hearing
signaling his willingness to work with this idea, and I believe
it fits with the administration's priorities in removing red-
tape where it is not needed and freeing the private sector up
to innovate and bring new ideas to market.
So again, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from Colorado
and all of my colleagues on the committee for their support,
and I urge passage of this important legislation.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Hultgren. I appreciate that.
And the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Perlmutter, is
recognized.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Hultgren. I was surprised at the gentleman from Illinois that
you didn't talk about any of your labs or the universities of
Illinois, but Dr. Foster took care of that, so I think you're
good.
But I appreciate the gentleman for bringing this bill. It
does give the opportunity to the directors of the labs to have
authority and some discretion in dealing with contracts and
agreements that are a million dollars or less. That will allow
the labs to enter into these agreements in a much quicker basis
but it doesn't relieve us of oversight, doesn't relieve the
labs of auditing trails and appropriate accounting for these
kinds of things but it does allow them to enter into contracts
on a much quicker basis.
So I think this is a good bill. It was part of the overall
Modernization of our Laboratories Act that Mr. Hultgren and I
sponsored earlier. This piece, I think, should move very
quickly through the process, and as this Committee knows, I
represent Golden, Colorado, and the National Renewable Energy
Lab. NREL is the premiere, energy efficiency and renewable
energy lab in the world, and for more than 40 years, NREL has
led the charge in research and design of renewable-energy
products directly affecting the way we utilize and secure
American energy.
This bill would allow that director of that laboratory to
enter into contracts of a million dollars or less without going
through a whole bunch of levels of approval. Obviously over
that, then the approval process kicks in but the auditing
process to make sure that there isn't any funny business will
always be there. So this gives us an opportunity to be nimble,
as the title to the bill would suggest. It gives the
opportunity to have discretion within our directors, who are
all very accomplished individuals and will allow us to move
quickly in a very fast field that is competitive all around the
world.
So I thank the gentleman from Illinois for bringing this
bill and allowing me to cosponsor with him.
I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Perlmutter.
If there are no amendments, a reporting quorum being
present, I move that the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology report H.R. 5907 to the House with the
recommendation that the bill be approved.
The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 5907 to the
House.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, nay.
The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered reported
favorably.
Without objection, the Motion to Reconsider is laid upon
the table, and H.R. 5907 is ordered reported to the House.
H.R. 5906
Chairman Smith. Now, pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R.
5906, the ARPA-Act of 2018, and the clerk will report the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 5906, a bill to amend the America COMPETES
Act to establish Department of Energy policy for Advanced
Research Projects Agency-Energy, and for other purposes.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the bill is considered
as read and open for amendment at any point.
Chairman Smith. And the bill's sponsor, the gentleman from
Oklahoma, Mr. Lucas, is recognized for his opening statement.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
speak on behalf of this important legislation.
The ARPA-E Act of 2018 requires the Department of Energy to
refocus ARPA-E toward developing transformative science and
technology solutions to address energy, environment, economic,
and national security challenges.
ARPA-E was created to ensure that the U.S. energy sector
maintained a competitive edge in developing energy
technologies. The program was established to help develop high-
potential, high-impact energy technologies that were too early
stage to attract private-sector investment. ARPA-E was designed
to provide finite research and development funding for a
limited time, with the intention to have quick, notable impact
on the development of new energy technologies. In order to
accomplish this, ARPA-E was given a unique management
structure, with flexibility start and stop research projects
that are no longer achieving individual goals, expedited hiring
and firing authority to make sure ARPA-E staff could adequately
select and support projects, and the tools to identify market
challenges that could affect the advancement in project
technologies.
However, there are a number of issues that have made ARPA-E
controversial over the years. The first is the worry this is
just more of the same from the Department of Energy. After all,
with the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy program funded
at over $2.3 billion, why did we need another clean energy
program? Second, we've heard concerns over the years that ARPA-
E wasn't meeting its intended goal--to fund the kind of
technologies that are so innovative they would never attract
private-sector investment--but was instead providing funding to
big companies with access to market capital, or funding
research that was already underway in other Federal agencies,
or in the private sector. I believe that while these are valid
concerns, ARPA-E is a program that can and has had tremendous
impact on the development of new energy technologies.
Over the 10-years after its establishment, the bill we will
consider today will both address these concerns, and enable
ARPA-E to apply its innovative approach to a broader set of
technology challenges.
The reforms in this legislation will expand the mission of
ARPA-E to include the full DOE mission, and empower the agency
to promote science and technology-driven solutions to DOE's
broad mission goals. Following the mission of the Department,
the ARPA-E Act of 2018 will allow the agency to solve big
challenges, like nuclear waste management and cleanup, reducing
the environmental impact of energy production, and improving
the reliability, resiliency, and security of the electric grid.
The bill also provides the Secretary with flexibility to
identify additional challenges for ARPA-E to address within the
core mission of the Department. The ARPA-E Act also takes
important steps to prevent the duplication of research across
DOE and to require applicants to indicate that they have
attempted to find private-sector financing for a particular
technology. This good-governance provision ensures limited
taxpayer dollars are spent on the most innovative and
transformative technologies, not in competition with the
private sector.
With the right mission goals and management, I believe
ARPA-E's innovative approach can build on the basic science and
early stage research at the Department, and help fast-track new
technologies that will grow our economy.
Once again, I'd like to thank Chairman Smith for supporting
this legislation. I'd also to thank Ranking Member Johnson for
cosponsoring this bipartisan bill. I encourage my colleagues to
support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time, Mr.
Chairman.
Prepared Statement of Mr. Lucas
Thank you, Chairman Smith, for the opportunity to speak on
behalf of this important legislation.
The ARPA-E Act of 2018 requires the Department of Energy
(DOE) to refocus ARPA-E towards developing transformative
science and technology solutions to address energy,
environment, economic and national security challenges.
ARPA-E was created to ensure the U.S. energy sector
maintained a competitive in developing emerging energy
technologies. The program was established to help develop
``high-potential, high-impact energy technologies'' that were
too early stage to attract private sector investment.
ARPA-E was designed to provide finite research and
development funding for a limited time, with the intention to
have quick, notable impact on the development of new energy
technologies. In order to accomplish this goal, ARPA-E was
given a unique management structure, with flexibility start and
stop research projects that are no longer achieving individual
goals, expedited hiring and firing authority to make sure ARPA-
E staff could adequately select and support projects, and the
tools to identify market challenges that could affect the
advancement in project technologies.
However, there are a number of issues that have made ARPA-E
controversial over the years. The first is the worry this is
just more of the same from the Department of Energy. After all,
with the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy program funded
at over $2.3 billion, why did we need another clean energy
program?
Second, we've heard concerns over the years that ARPA-E
wasn't meeting its intended goal-to fund the kind of
technologies that are so innovative they would never attract
private sector investment-but was instead providing funding to
big companies with access to market capital, or funding
research that was already underway in other federal agencies,
or in the private sector.
I believe that while these are valid concerns, ARPA-E is a
program that can and has had tremendous impact on the
development of new energy technologies. Over ten years after
its establishment, the bill we will consider today will both
address these concerns, and enable ARPA-E to apply its
innovative approach to a broader set of technology challenges.
This legislation will expand the mission of ARPA-E to
include the full DOE mission, and empower the agency to promote
science and technology driven solutions to DOE's broad mission
goals.
Following the mission of the department, the ARPA-E Act of
2018 will allow the agency to solve big challenges, like
nuclear waste management and clean-up, reducing the
environmental impact of energy production, and improving the
reliability, resiliency and security of the electric grid.
The bill also provides the secretary with the flexibility
to identify additional challenges for ARPA-E to address within
the core mission of the department.
The ARPA-E Act also takes important steps to prevent the
duplication of research across DOE and to require applicants to
indicate that they have attempted to find private sector
financing for a particular technology.
This good governance provision ensures limited taxpayer
dollars are spent on the most innovative and transformative
technologies, not in competition with the private sector.
With the right mission goals and management, I believe
ARPA-E's innovative approach can build on the basic science and
early-stage research at the department, and help fast track new
technologies that will grow our economy.
Once again, I would like to thank Chairman Smith for
supporting this important legislation. I also want to thank
Ranking Member Johnson for cosponsoring this bipartisan
legislation. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Lucas.
And the gentlewoman from Texas, the Ranking Member, is
recognized for her comments.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have spoken on this bill in the opening statement so I'll
be brief. I just want to thank Mr. Lucas for sponsoring this
bill, which I am cosponsoring.
ARPA-E is widely considered one of the most successful and
cost-effective programs at the Department of Energy. I am a big
supporter of their work, and as the appropriators' process
moves forward, I hope that we can work together to ensure that
this program is fully funded.
I want to again thank Mr. Lucas and Chairman Smith for
working with us. I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
The only amendment on the roster is a Manager's Amendment
offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma--oh, I am sorry. The
gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney, is recognized.
Mr. McNerney. I move to strike the last word.
Chairman Smith. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. McNerney. I thank the Chairman for bringing these bills
today.
I want to second the comments of my colleague from
California, Ms. Lofgren. The national labs are a tremendous
asset for our Nation. I worked at the Sandia National Lab in
Albuquerque for a number of years, and I saw the tremendous
resource of innovative talent and innovative drive that my
colleagues had at the labs. Livermore National Lab is right
outside of my district, and I see the passion of people that
work there so I appreciate their work, and this Committee
should continue to support the work that's conducted by our
national laboratories. In particular, I support the nuclear
fusion programs. Again, like Ms. Lofgren, I see tremendous
potential for that technology as it matures.
And I also want to say that ARPA-E, the bill under
discussion now, has been a real opportunity for energy
innovation, which is badly needed. We do have energy challenges
in this country. We need to address climate change, and ARPA-E
is a tremendous tool for doing that.
So I support the bill and I support the Chairman and the
Ranking Member, and my friend from Oklahoma, Mr. Lucas, for
bringing this forward. I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. McNerney.
And the gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, is
recognized.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want
to join my colleagues in offering support for this important
bill, and thank Mr. Lucas and Ranking Member Johnson for
bringing it forward, and also say that I'm pleased that we're
doing this bipartisan package of bills today.
I also want to ask the Science Committee to welcome my
foster intern for the day, Isaiah Paloma. Isaiah spent time--
although he lives in Oregon now, he spent time in the Idaho
foster youth system, serving on the Idaho Foster Youth Advisory
Board. He now lives in Seaside, Oregon, in the district I'm
honored to represent, and is part of the congressional Foster
Youth Shadow program, and I want to say, Mr. Chairman and
Committee Members, I think it's really important that we're
doing this package of bipartisan bills today when we have
foster youth here from around the country to show them that we
are able to work together and willing to invest in something as
important as research and innovation into our energy future.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, colleagues. Yes,
Isaiah is here today sitting behind me today. Thank you so much
for bringing this package of bills forward. I look forward to
supporting them here in the Committee and on the floor, and I
yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici.
The only amendment on the roster is a Manager's Amendment--
--
Mr. Lucas. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Smith [continuing]. By the gentleman of Oklahoma,
and he's recognized for purposes of offering that amendment.
Mr. Lucas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Smith. And the clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 5906 offered by Mr. Lucas of
Oklahoma, amendment #008.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, and the gentleman is recognized to explain
his amendment.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This amendment provides for technical changes to the
legislation. I appreciate the opportunity to work with the
Minority to identify these changes prior to today's markup and
for their support on this important legislation.
I encourage my colleagues to vote for this amendment, and
with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Lucas.
Is there any further discussion on the amendment?
The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, is recognized.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the
last word.
Chairman Smith. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you.
I want to thank Mr. Lucas for offering the amendment, which
I support. The amendment makes minor but helpful changes to the
base bill. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I
yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. This is going very
quickly.
Is there any further discussion? Any further amendments?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment
offered by Mr. Lucas.
All in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
If there is no--if there are no further amendments, a
reporting quorum being present, I move that the Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology report H.R. 5906 as amended to
the House with the recommendation that the bill be approved.
The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 5906 to the
House as amended.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, nay.
The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered reported
favorably.
Without objection, the Motion to Reconsider is laid upon
the table. H.R. 5906 is ordered reported to the House, and I
ask unanimous consent that staff be authorized to make any
necessary technical and conforming changes, and without
objection, so ordered.
I hope all Members will stay in the room just for a minute.
I've got three announcements I'd like to make, so if you all
will stay close by?
The first is to welcome our newest Member of the Science
Committee, and that is Arizona's newest Member of the House,
Debbie Lesko. She served in the Arizona House of
Representatives for 6 years and then in the Arizona Senate,
where she was President Pro Tem from 2017 to 2018.
Representative Lesko has a keen interest in STEM education and
the right kind of climate change. We look forward to having her
expertise and perspective on the Committee. Welcome, Debbie.
Second announcement that particularly the Members to my
right may be interested in knowing is that of the 32 bills this
Committee has approved, 28 of the 32 are bipartisan and have
been bipartisan bills. That's as good as it gets. OK.
And the last announcement is sort of a mixed announcement,
and it is with gratitude for Molly Fromm's skills and with
excitement for her next step that I have to announce that our
General Counsel and the woman either sitting next to me or
behind me will leave the Science Committee this Friday, day
after tomorrow, after 3-1/2 years. Molly is a native of La
Jolla, California, otherwise known as far west Texas. Before
joining the Science Committee, Molly worked with my California
colleague, Representative Darrell Issa, for a decade, first in
his personal office and then as Deputy General Counsel and
Parliamentarian for the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform. Molly has served the Science Committee tirelessly and
well during the 114th and 115th Congresses. She understands
Committee and House procedures. She works hard, and she has
helped the Committee advance numerous pieces of legislation.
Though we are sad to see her go, we're glad she won't be going
far. Molly will take over as General Counsel and
Parliamentarian for the House Financial Services Committee
under my friend and Texas Colleague, Chairman Jed Hensarling.
We wish Molly, her husband Adam, and her son, Patrick, who just
turned one this past weekend, a happy future as they embark on
a new adventure. So Molly, we will miss you but we will
continue to appreciate all your good work.
She--well, I'll stop there except that she has a great--
look at her dress closely is all I can tell you. Those are
wonderful red elephants. It's my--I used to have a tie that
matched it but I don't know what I've done with it. I would
have worn it today. But anyway, Molly, thank you again.
I thank all the Members for being here. I appreciate
everybody's attendance, and we stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
H.R. 5905, Amendment Roster, H.R. 5907, H.R. 5906, Amendment Roster
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE
MARKUPS: H.R. 6227, NATIONAL
QUANTUM INITIATIVE ACT;
H.R. 6229, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY
REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2018; AND
H.R. 6226, AMERICAN SPACE
SAFE MANAGEMENT ACT
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 27, 2018
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:11 a.m., in
room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar
Smith [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Chairman Smith. The Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is
authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any time.
Pursuant to Committee rule 2(e) and House rule XI(2)(h)(4),
the Chair announces that he may postpone roll call votes.
Today, we meet to consider H.R. 6227, the National Quantum
Initiative Act; H.R. 6229, the National Institute of Standards
and Technology Reauthorization Act of 2018; and H.R. 6226, the
American Space SAFE Management Act. I'll recognize myself for
an opening statement.
The first bill we consider, H.R. 6227, the National Quantum
Initiative Act, supports a much more concentrated, coordinated
Federal effort to accelerate quantum research and technology
development for the economic and national security of the
United States. Let me thank Ranking Member Eddie Bernice
Johnson and the 28 other Members of the Committee for
cosponsoring this bipartisan legislation.
The second bill is H.R. 6229, the National Institute of
Standards and Technology Reauthorization Act of 2018. This
legislation, sponsored by Research and Technology Subcommittee
Chairwoman Barbara Comstock, authorizes NIST's research and
technology programs for 2 years. The bill provides for
increased fundamental scientific and technical research and
investments in emerging technology areas. This will ensure
continued U.S. innovation leadership in quantum science,
artificial intelligence and big data science, cybersecurity,
the Internet of Things and sustainable infrastructure.
Chairwoman Comstock's bill also directs NIST to use its
cybersecurity expertise to assist Federal agencies in improving
critical infrastructure cybersecurity.
The final bill is H.R. 6226, the American Space SAFE
Management Act. This landmark legislation, cosponsored by Space
Subcommittee Chairman Brian Babin, Ranking Member Ami Bera, and
Congressman Ed Perlmutter, establishes a space traffic
management framework that will ensure a safe operating
environment in outer space.
Prepared Statement of Chairman Smith
Today we meet to consider three bills. The first is H.R.
6227, the National Quantum Initiative Act. This legislation
supports a much more concentrated, coordinated Federal effort
to accelerate quantum research and technology development for
the economic and national security of the United States.
Let me thank Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson and the
28 other members of the committee for co-sponsoring this
bipartisan legislation. The second bill is H.R. 6229, the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
Reauthorization Act of 2018. This legislation, sponsored by
Research and Technology Subcommittee Chairwoman Barbara
Comstock, authorizes NIST's research and technology programs
for two years.
The bill provides for increased fundamental scientific and
technical research and investments in emerging technology
areas. This will ensure continued U.S. innovation leadership in
quantum science, artificial intelligence and big data science,
cybersecurity, the internet of things and sustainable
infrastructure.
Chairwoman Comstock's bill also directs NIST to use its
cybersecurity expertise to assist federal agencies in improving
critical infrastructure cybersecurity. The final bill is H.R.
6226, the American Space SAFE Management Act. This landmark
legislation, co-sponsored by Space Subcommittee Chairman Brian
Babin, Ranking Member Ami Bera and Congressman Ed Perlmutter,
establishes a space traffic management framework that will
ensure a safe operating environment in outer space.
Chairman Smith. I'll recognize the Ranking Member, the
gentlewoman from Texas, Eddie Bernice Johnson, for her opening
statement.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Chairman Smith, for
holding today's markup of three bills. The first bill we are
considering is the National Quantum Initiative Act. This is a
good bill, and I'm happy to urge my colleagues to join me in
cosponsoring the legislation. I'll speak more on this bill in a
little while. So let me just say that I'm very happy the
Science Committee is taking the lead here in this cutting-edge
field.
I also want to thank the Chair for working closely with us
to draft a bipartisan bill that I think will also be widely
supported by industry and academia. This bill really is a good
example of what the Science Committee does best, and I look
forward to its passage.
The second bill we are considering, the National Institute
of Standards and Technology Reauthorization Act of 2018 is
another good bill which I'm cosponsoring. This bill
reauthorizes one of our most important but underappreciated
agencies in the Federal Government. NIST is a vital partner for
American industry in fields as diverse as infrastructure
construction to cybersecurity. They're also an essential
collaborator with American manufacturing.
I want to thank the Chairman for working with us to address
some concerns we had with the original draft of the bill, and I
support the manager's amendment that is intended to address
several of those concerns. I look forward to advancing this
bill through the House and working with the Senate to get it
enacted.
Finally, we're marking up the American Space SAFE
Management Act. Unfortunately, I must reluctantly oppose this
bill today. I want to be clear. I strongly support efforts to
establish a civilian space situational awareness capacity.
However, I do not support our Committee rubberstamping the
half-baked efforts of the Trump Administration to address the
issue.
Currently, the Department of Defense handles space
situational awareness for the U.S. Government. There's been a
growing recognition that the civilian side of this work would
be more appropriate outside DOD. The Obama Administration began
to plan for this and work was underway to place this function
at the Department of Transportation, which currently is the
body that promotes and regulates commercial space launch and
reentry.
Then, the Trump Administration came in and decided it
wanted to move this function to the Department of Commerce
instead. This is in spite of the fact that Commerce has no
existing infrastructure or expertise to support this important
work. In fact, no credible reason has been articulated for why
the Commerce Department is the best place to house the
function. The only discernible motivation for reversing course
is that they didn't want to endorse something Obama had
started. This is no way to govern, and it wouldn't be the first
time this Administration has acted that way.
I'll have an amendment later to do this oversight Congress
should have demanded. I've been in hearings in other Committees
on this very same subject. Let's have the Academies look at the
issue and give us guidance on what civilian agency is best
suited to shoulder this new responsibility. Maybe they decide
Commerce is the right one, or maybe they will decide that our
$21 billion civilian space agency would be best. Then, we can
come back and make an informed decision instead of just
rubberstamping the ill-formed ideas coming from the Trump
Administration.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Prepared Statement of Ms. Johnson
Thank you, Chairman Smith, for holding today's markup of
three bills.
The first bill we are considering is the National Quantum
Initiative Act. This is a good bill, and I am happy to urge my
colleagues to join me in cosponsoring the legislation. I will
speak more on this bill in a minute, so let me just say that I
am very happy the Science Committee is taking the lead here in
a cutting-edge field. I also want to thank the Chairman for
working closely with us to craft a bipartisan bill that I think
will also be widely supported by industry and academia. This
bill really is a good example of what the Science Committee
does best, and I look forward to its passage.
The second bill we are considering, the National Institute
of Standards and Technology Reauthorization Act of 2018, is
another good bill which I am cosponsoring. This bill
reauthorizes one of our most important but underappreciated
agencies in the Federal government. NIST is a vital partner for
American industry in fields as diverse as infrastructure
construction to cybersecurity. They are also an essential
collaborator with American manufacturing. I want to thank the
Chairman for working with us to address some concerns we had
with the original draft of the bill, and I support the
manager's amendment that is intended to address several of
those concerns. I look forward to advancing this bill through
the House and working with the Senate to get it enacted.
Finally, we are marking up the American Space SAFE
Management Act. Unfortunately, I must reluctantly oppose this
bill today. I want to be clear. I strongly support efforts to
establish a civilian space situational awareness capability.
However, I do not support our Committee rubber stamping the
half-baked efforts of the Trump Administration to address the
issue.
Currently, the Department of Defense handles space
situational awareness for the U.S. Government. There has been a
growing recognition that the civilian side of this work would
be more appropriate outside of DOD. The Obama Administration
began to plan for this, and work was underway to place this
function at the Department of Transportation, which currently
is the body that promotes and regulates commercial space launch
and reentry. Then the Trump Administration came in and decided
it wanted to move this function to the Department of Commerce
instead. This is in spite of the fact that Commerce has no
existing infrastructure or expertise to support this important
work. In fact, no credible reason has been articulated for why
the Commerce Department is the best place to house this
function. The only discernible motivation for reversing course
is that they just didn't want to endorse something Obama
started. That is a no way to govern, but it wouldn't be the
first time this Administration has acted that way.
I'll have an amendment later to do the oversight Congress
should have demanded when the Trump Administration first
started pushing this agenda. Let's have the Academies look at
the issue and give us guidance on what civilian agency is best
suited to shoulder this new responsibility. Maybe they decide
Commerce is. Or maybe they will decide that our 21 billion
dollar civilian space agency would be best. Then we can come
back and make an informed decision, instead of just rubber
stamping the ill-formed ideas coming from the Trump
Administration. I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
H.R. 6227
Chairman Smith. Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R.
6227, the National Quantum Initiative Act. And the clerk will
report the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 6227, a bill to provide for coordinated
Federal program to accelerate quantum research and development
for the economic and national security of the United States.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the bill is considered
as read and open for amendment at any point, and I'll recognize
myself to speak on the bill.
Sixty years ago, the first commercial computer was almost
the size of this room. Today, we hold more computing power in
our hand with an iPhone. Just as classical computing redefined
the 20th century, quantum has posed--seems poised to redefine
the next generation of scientific breakthroughs.
Conventional computing uses a series of tiny, electronic
on-off switches within a processing chip. Technological
advances have made possible supercomputers that can perform
series of on-off operations at astonishing speeds. But
classical computing technology is nearing its limits. Quantum
computing is different. Quantum computers rely on q-bits. These
are subatomic particles that are both on and off at the same
time. This will enable quantum computers to perform complex
calculations at speeds that are potentially millions of times
faster than today's most advanced supercomputers.
Quantum will create exciting new opportunities in areas
like cybersecurity, medicine, communications, financial
services and transportation. But the potential threat to
America's security is sobering. The nation that develops
quantum communications technology first may be able to decode,
in a matter of seconds, other countries' sensitive national
security information, proprietary technologies, and personal
information.
Last October, the Science Committee held a hearing on
American leadership in quantum technology. Experts testified
that, as other nations around the word are rapidly advancing
quantum programs, the United States faces the threat of falling
behind. China and the European Union are investing billions of
dollars in new research facilities and equipment for quantum
computing. China, in particular, has Stated publicly its
national goal of surpassing the United States during the next
decade. Now is the time to compose a national quantum strategy
and preserve America's dominance in the scientific world.
The National Quantum Initiative Act will meet these
challenges by forming a 10-year program to advance quantum
science development and technology applications in the United
States. The bill leverages the expertise and resources of U.S.
industry, academia, and government to move quantum information
science to the next level of research and development.
The legislation establishes a National Quantum Coordination
Office within the White House Office of Science and Technology
Policy. The office will oversee interagency coordination and
strategic planning, serve as a central point of contact for
stakeholders, conduct outreach, and promote commercialization
of Federal research by the private sector.
The bill also supports basic research, education, and
standards development at the National Institute of Standards
and Technology, the National Science Foundation, and the
Department of Energy. Two hundred and twenty-five million
dollars a year of these agencies' baseline funding will now be
directed to new quantum research centers and laboratory
research. Their activities will address fundamental research
gaps, create a stronger work force, and develop revolutionary
knowledge and transformative innovations to give U.S. companies
and workers an enduring competitive advantage.
The bill ensures that U.S. high-tech companies, which are
investing heavily in quantum research, and a surge of quantum
technology startups will contribute their knowledge and
resources to a national effort.
H.R. 6227 was developed with input from industry, academia,
national laboratories, Federal agencies, and the
Administration. It was an open and bipartisan process. The
input of those stakeholders has yielded a good consensus bill.
We have received broad support, including letters from the
National Photonics Initiative, the Quantum Industry Coalition--
which I think consists of about 15 members--IBM, Intel, Google,
Harris Corporation, Yale, Harvard, the University of Maryland,
and the Optical Society, among many others.
I thank Ranking Member Johnson for joining me in
introducing this bill and the many Members of the Committee who
have signed on as original cosponsors.
I would also like to acknowledge that Senator Thune and
Senator Nelson, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate
Commerce Committee, have introduced a companion bill in the
Senate. With bipartisan, bicameral support and the backing of
the Administration, I believe this bill could become law by the
end of the year.
Winning this scientific race requires a new moonshot for
the 21st century. This bill will align ongoing Federal,
academic, and private sector research for a quantum leap in the
right direction.
Prepared Statement of Chairman Smith
Sixty years ago, the first commercial computer was almost
the size of this room. Today we hold more computing power in
our hand with an I-phone.
Just as classical computing redefined the 20th Century,
quantum is poised to redefine the next generation of scientific
breakthroughs.
Conventional computing uses a series of tiny, electronic
on-off switches within a processing chip. Technological
advances have made possible supercomputers that can perform
series of on-off operations at astonishing speeds. But
classical computing technology is nearing its limits.
Quantum computing is different. Quantum computers rely on
``q-bits.'' These are subatomic particles that are both on and
off at the same time.
This will enable quantum computers to perform complex
calculations at speeds that are potentially millions of times
faster than today's most advanced supercomputers.
Quantum will create exciting new opportunities in areas
like cyber security, medicine, communications, financial
services and transportation.
But the potential threat to America's security is sobering.
The nation that develops quantum communications technology
first may be able to decode-in a matter of seconds-other
countries' sensitive national security information, proprietary
technologies and personal information.
Last October, the Science Committee held a hearing on
``American Leadership in Quantum Technology.'' Experts
testified that as other nations around the word are rapidly
advancing quantum programs, the United States faces the threat
of falling behind.
China and the European Union are investing billions of
dollars in new research facilities and equipment for quantum
computing. China, in particular, has stated publicly its
national goal of surpassing the U.S. during the next decade.
Now is the time to compose a national quantum strategy and
preserve America's dominance in the scientific world.
The National Quantum Initiative Act will meet these
challenges by forming a 10-year program to advance quantum
science development and technology applications in the United
States.
The bill leverages the expertise and resources of U.S.
industry, academia and government to move quantum information
science to the next level of research and development.
The legislation establishes a National Quantum Coordination
Office within the White House Office of Science and Technology
Policy.
The office will oversee interagency coordination and
strategic planning, serve as a central point of contact for
stakeholders, conduct outreach and promote commercialization of
federal research by the private sector.
The bill also supports basic research, education and
standards development at the National Institute of Standards
and Technology, the National Science Foundation, and the
Department of Energy.
$225 million a year of these agencies' baseline funding
will now be directed to new quantum research centers and
laboratory research. Their activities will address fundamental
research gaps, create a stronger workforce, and develop
revolutionary knowledge and transformative innovations to give
U.S. companies and workers an enduring competitive advantage.
The bill ensures that U.S. high-tech companies, which are
investing heavily in quantum research, and a surge of quantum
technology start-ups will contribute their knowledge and
resources to a national effort.
H.R. 6227 was developed with input from industry, academia,
National Laboratories, federal agencies and the administration.
It was an open and bipartisan process.
The input of those stakeholders has yielded a good
consensus bill.
We have received broad support, including letters from the
National Photonics Initiative, the Quantum Industry Coalition,
IBM, Intel, Google, Harris Corporation, Yale, Harvard, the
University of Maryland and the Optical Society.
I thank Ranking Member Johnson for joining me in
introducing this bill, and the many members of the committee
who have signed on as original co-sponsors.
I would also like to acknowledge that Senator Thune and
Senator Nelson, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate
Commerce Committee, have introduced a companion bill in the
Senate. With bipartisan, bicameral support and the backing of
the administration, I believe this bill could become law by the
end of the year.
Winning this scientific race requires a new moonshot for
the 21st Century. This bill will align ongoing federal,
academic and private sector research for a quantum leap in the
right direction.
Chairman Smith. That concludes my statement, and now, the
Ranking Member Ms. Johnson is recognized for hers.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the fact that you've introduced H.R. 6227, the
National Quantum Initiative Act, on which I'm happy to be a
cosponsor.
This legislation will establish a national program to
accelerate progress in research and technology development
related to quantum information science. Research in this area
promises to revolutionize the way we solve problems by
leveraging quantum effects such as superposition and
entanglement.
Many believe quantum computing technology has the potential
to accelerate progress on some of our most pressing challenges,
including how to address climate change and understand complex
diseases like cancer. The race is on to build the world's first
quantum computer capable of solving problems that have long
eluded conventional computers. Not unlike the space race in the
1960's, the stakes in today's quantum race are high.
Global leadership in quantum computing brings with it a
military and intelligence edge, as well as a competitive
advantage in what many expect to be a massive industry for
decades to come. The National Quantum Initiative authorized in
this bill enables coordinated activities at the Department of
Education, the National Science Foundation, and the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, as well as many other
important Federal agencies that will have a role in developing
and benefiting from these technologies.
Along with sustaining support for research in this area in
general, DOE and NSF will fund new national centers to bring
together preeminent experts in quantum science, hardware and
software development, and education at NIST will lead the way
in developing the measurement and standards infrastructure
vital to the emerging industry.
By promoting access to the products of these activities
across the Federal Government and to academia and the private
sector, the National Quantum Initiative enables--ensures that
we will maximize the return on this investment. We must invest
more in this research. We need to ensure that we are educating
and training the next generation of top quantum scientists and
engineers, and we should do more to encourage partnerships
between government, academia, and industry.
This is good legislation, and this will let us--or put us
on the right track, and I urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting its passage.
Chairman Smith. And you yield back? The gentlewoman yields
back, and her statement is appreciated.
We will now go to amendments on this particular bill, and
the first one is going to be offered by the gentleman from
Illinois, Mr. Hultgren, and he is recognized for that purpose.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment
at the desk.
Chairman Smith. And the--I'm sorry. The clerk will report
the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 6227, offered by Mr. Hultgren
of Illinois, amendment number 002.
Chairman Smith. OK. Without objection, the amendment will
be considered as read, and the gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My amendment adds a provision to the duties of the National
Quantum Coordination Office tasking it with and ensuring that
the Federal research agencies, through their quantum research
programs and the new NSF and DOE centers, are utilizing
existing quantum computers and communication systems for
federally funded research.
Several U.S. companies, universities, and laboratories have
developed or are developing functioning quantum systems. It's
important that the government not duplicate those efforts
already underway but tap those resources to further basic
research and application development.
DOE, NSF, and NIST have all supported research grants in
the past, utilizing private supercomputer and cloud computing
systems, and this will ensure that they continue to do the same
thing for quantum systems.
Again, I want to thank Chairman Smith and Ranking Member
Johnson for working with me and the external stakeholders on
this amendment, and I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Hultgren.
I support the amendment and recommend our colleagues
support it as well.
Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Lipinski. Move to strike the last word?
Chairman Smith. Who seeks recognize? Oh, I'm sorry. Mr.
Lipinski is recognized.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I support the amendment, and I thank the Chairman for
working in a bipartisan way on this bill. I think it's very
important that what we--we do what we aim to accomplish in this
bill: Invest significant Federal resources in a promising
technology whose benefits may be a long way off but where
there's fierce international competition.
It's going to be through strategic decisions like these
that we will become the world's economic, scientific, and
technical leader in this as we start out now, and we can only
maintain that position through continuous significant
investment in cutting-edge basic research. We know other
countries are increasing their investments in quantum
technology, in some cases guided by long-term strategies, and
this bill will make sure that we develop a coherent strategy of
our own.
Mr. Hultgren and I were--both come from the Chicago area,
and I think it's important to highlight and commend the
research partnership from Chicago that's been instrumental in
contributing to the Committee's understanding of quantum
information science, including testifying at hearings,
participating in roundtables, and reviewing drafts of this
legislation.
Chicago Quantum Exchange, the partnership between
University of Chicago, Argonne National Lab, and Fermi National
Accelerator Lab, Chairman Weber had a codel out to the--these
labs a few weeks ago, and a number of Members of the Committee
got to hear more about what they're doing when it comes to
quantum.
The Exchange was created to develop and grow
interdisciplinary collaborations for the exploration and
development of new quantum-enabled technologies and to help
educate a new generation of quantum information scientists and
engineers.
Partnership with the private sector is also an important
element of the Exchange. Chicago Quantum Exchange may be a
model for the future of R&D in quantum information science, and
this bill will help that and help our country when it comes to
moving ahead with quantum.
With that, I yield--my colleagues to support the amendment
and the bill, and I yield back.
Chairman Smith. OK. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski.
Is there any further discussion?
If not, the question is on the Hultgren amendment.
All in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
The next amendment is going to be offered by the gentleman
from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, and he's recognized for that
purpose.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Smith. The clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 6227, offered by Mr.
Rohrabacher of California, amendment number 057.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment will be
considered as read, and the gentleman is recognized to explain
his amendment.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Ronald Reagan, who I once worked for, once said, ``No
government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So
government's programs, once launched, never disappear.
Actually, they're the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever
see on this earth,'' end of quote. My amendment would end the
National Nanotechnology Initiative by transitioning the duties
and activities to the appropriate Federal agencies and offices
as we stand up the National Quantum Initiative.
Since the passage of the 21st Century Nanotechnology
Research and Development Act of 2003, which I supported, the
Nanotechnology Initiative, which I--which is the NTI--has
helped make the United States a global leader in
nanotechnology. From Fiscal Year 2001 through Fiscal Year 2015,
the Federal Government has spent approximately $20 billion,
close to $21 billion actually, in this--in nanoscale research,
engineering technology through the NNI.
After years of nanotechnology research, Federal agencies
have well-established this research, nanotechnology research,
and regulatory activities. Nanotechnology is not some new
morphous thing that we are trying to get a handle on and build
a strategy around. We have been successful at that. And while I
am certain some level of cross-collaboration will continue to
be useful in this area, there is no longer any necessity for
this overreaching program. The NNI is 15 years old this year.
The Manhattan Project lasted 5 years. The Human Genome
Project--and I--again, which I supported, lasted 13 years.
There is clearly more research to be done in
nanotechnology, and this proposal doesn't stop Federal agencies
from pursuing nanotechnology in their specific areas, but this
type of overarching coordination and spending has reached its
logical endpoint. The NNI has been a great catalyst to bring
our Nation to the next level, but continuing it requires the
use of limited resources, which threatens new initiatives like
the National Quantum Initiative, which is critical for
America's future. We should not continue to subsidize our
focus. It is important to sunset these things, and they should
not just go on in perpetuity.
I would not the Quantum Initiative and the base bill
sunsets, what we are about to pass, sunsets after 10 years. And
I know some will oppose what I'm suggesting here as a reflexive
refusal to end any government program, to close any government
office, no matter how clearly it has outlived its usefulness.
But I would note that the NNI was never intended to be a never-
ending entitlement. That--and again, I voted for that
initiative when we started it, but it wasn't meant to be a
never-ending program. The program has succeeded in helping push
the United States to the next frontier of nanotechnology. It
did its job, and now it's time to move on to the next phase,
which is the Quantum Initiative.
And the Quantum Initiative is a proper way for Congress to
coordinate and support pioneering scientific research over the
next decade by establishing a 10-year framework, which is what
our bill does, for moving quantum past this point and into the
next stage of development, just--which is to maintain
scientific leadership in the--for the United States.
All things being said, I have no interest in derailing this
agreement that our Chairman and others have worked so hard to
put in place. So I expect to withdraw this amendment once
everyone has had an opportunity to discuss it, and I thought I
would add these thoughts so people can basically understand the
dynamics of why we have a $20 trillion bill that we're passing
on to future generations. We need to be able to end programs as
well as begin them. We cannot create endless programs and
initiatives that--with no end dates included.
John Kennedy set the goal of landing a man on the moon
before the decade was out. Deadlines focus minds and efforts.
End points for our programs can be just as important as
starting points. And so I will be withdrawing my amendment if
there's no other discussion. But I thank the leadership for the
initiative that you're showing today. And let us be responsible
when we create new initiatives that are important for our
country.
I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Mr. Rohrabacher, thank you for your good
points. As you suggested, we'll see if there's any further
discussion, but I appreciate your willingness to withdraw the
amendment and let us advance the legislation.
But is there any further discussion on this particular
amendment?
If not, without objection, the amendment will be----
Mr. Rohrabacher. I withdraw my amendment.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, so ordered. Thank you,
Mr. Rohrabacher.
The last amendment is by the gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
Foster, and he is recognized to offer the amendment.
Mr. Foster. Thank you, Mr.--Chairman Smith. I'd like to
also thank my colleague, Congresswoman Esty, for----
Chairman Smith. OK. And the clerk will report the amendment
first.
Mr. Foster. Oh.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 6227, offered by Mr. Foster of
Illinois, amendment number 110.
Chairman Smith. And, without objection, the amendment is
considered as read. And the gentleman is recognized to explain
his amendment.
Mr. Foster. Thank you, Chairman Smith.
I'd like to thank my colleague, Congresswoman Esty, for
cosponsoring this amendment, which I intend to withdraw at the
conclusion of the debate.
This was a very--a few months ago we held a joint
Subcommittee hearing on American leadership in quantum
technology, and this was a very productive and bipartisan
discussion, and I'm glad that the Committee followed up with
outreach to many stakeholders on this important issue.
I join my Republican and Democratic colleagues in
supporting the National Quantum Initiative. I appreciate that
this bill instructs the coordination of quantum research and
development across agencies and with industry and academic
partners. I believe this is key to ensuring the success of this
effort.
I would like to emphasize that this is a technically risky
endeavor, and neither technological success nor practical--nor
great practical relevance is assured. But I'm proud that
Congress is operating on the advice of top scientists is
willing to take that risk.
There's a famous quote that's attributed to two great
scientists--Michael Faraday and Benjamin Franklin--when asked
about new technologies such as electricity and what the
practical relevance is, and their response was ``Of what use is
a newborn baby?'' And this I think really is a fair description
of quantum technology at this point.
However, given the bipartisan support for this initiative,
I was disappointed to see that this bill explicitly does not
fund the participating agencies to start several new
activities. And my amendment today corrects this problem by
striking language in the bill that States that no additional
funds are authorized to carry out the National Quantum
Initiative.
The decision to legislative new activities without new
funding would inevitably mean that other valuable research in
these agencies would suffer. I'm also concerned that the
Director of National Quantum Coordination Office is appointed
by the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy,
a position that President Trump has not filled almost 2 years
into his term of office.
Now, I understand that the Chair is opposed to this
amendment, so as a courtesy to him, I will withdraw it, but I
do hope to work with my Republican colleagues to increase
funding for the participating agencies so that the National
Quantum Initiative can be properly funded without damage to
other activities.
And with that, I'd like to yield 1 minute to my colleague,
Ms. Esty.
Ms. Esty. Thank you. And I, too--and I know from our
hearings that quantum has enormous potential for this country,
and other countries are leaning in hard, allocating lots of
resources. And I think it would be pennywise and pound foolish
for us to try to support in name this initiative and not
actually secure vital funding. We know China is investing
massive resources in basic R&D, and again, for us to remain on
the cutting edge, we need to actually back that up with some
resources.
So I join my colleague Mr. Foster and thank him for raising
this amendment, and I think it's important, and I hope moving
forward we can look to find a way to ensure that this
critically important initiative receives the funding--not just
the titles but the funding it's going to need to, again, keep
the United States on that cutting edge of research and allow us
to be competitive in the world.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Foster. Thank you. And I----
Chairman Smith. OK.
Mr. Foster [continuing]. Withdraw the amendment.
Chairman Smith. OK. Thank you, Mr. Foster. And thank you,
Ms. Esty, as well.
Let me say that I know you all are aware of the constraints
we sometimes operate under, and under House rules, we can't
increase the funding right now. But let me reassure both of you
that I do support an increase in funding and will look for ways
to try to achieve that.
And, Mr. Foster, I appreciate the courtesy, and without
objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
If there are no further amendments, a reporting quorum
being present, I move that the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology report H.R. 6227 to the House, as amended, with the
recommendation that the bill be approved.
The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 6227 to the
House, as amended.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, nay.
The ayes have it. The bill is ordered reported favorably.
And without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid
upon the table. H.R. 6227 is ordered reported to the House. I
ask unanimous consent that staff be authorized to make any
necessary technical and conforming changes. And without
objection, so ordered.
H.R. 6229
Chairman Smith. Pursuant to notice, we now go to H.R. 6229,
the National Institute of Standards and Technology
Reauthorization Act of 2018. And the clerk will report the
bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 22--6229, a bill to authorize the programs
of the National Institute of Standards and Technology and for
other purposes.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the bill is considered
as read and open for amendment at any point.
And I understand we will now go to the gentleman from
Oklahoma, Mr. Lucas, for a statement.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
speak on behalf of Subcommittee Chairman Comstock's bill, H.R.
6229, the National Institute of Standards and Technology
Reauthorization Act of 2018.
NIST works to promote innovation and industry
competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards,
and technology. This legislation authorizes NIST's Industrial
Technology Services account, construction accounts, and
bolsters the Science and Technical Research and Services lab
account for fiscal years of 2018 and 2019.
NIST has the mission and capabilities to contribute to
areas critical to the United States' global competitiveness. To
this end, for Fiscal Year 2019, this legislation authorizes
increased investments in four emerging technology areas:
Quantum science, artificial science, data science, advanced
communications, and the Internet of Things and composites
research and standards development.
As we've just heard during our consideration of the
National Quantum Initiative Act of 2018, an international race
to claim quantum supremacy has begun. And it is not just in
quantum that we are racing our international rivals to develop.
By facilitating NIST's development of tools to address
performance and reliability concerns of artificial
intelligence, NIST will develop--will accelerate I should say
the implementation of AI systems and give U.S. industries a
competitive edge. The discoveries and technological advances
that will stem from these investments will significantly affect
the Nation's economy in decades to come.
One of the great challenges of the 21st century is
cybersecurity, and this legislation helps NIST address growing
cyber threat landscape by providing for the increase of its
fundamental and applied cyber research to address key questions
relating to the measurement of privacy, security, and the
vulnerability of software tools and communication networks.
This Committee has held multiple hearings on cybersecurity
since the news that the Office of Personnel Management, OPM,
was the target of two massive data breaches, exposing the
sensitive information of over 21 million Americans, and yes,
many of our constituents.
Last month, the office of OMB published the Federal
Cybersecurity Risk Determination Report and Action Plan in
accordance with Trump Executive Order 13800. The report
identifies that 74 percent of Federal agencies participating in
the risk assessment process have cybersecurity programs that
are either at risk or high risk. The report also confirms the
need to take bold approaches to improve Federal cybersecurity.
NIST plays a very important role in protecting from cyber
threats through its ongoing cybersecurity research, including
the applications of blockchain technology and by providing
guidelines and standards to help reduce cyber risk in Federal
agencies and critical infrastructure. This legislation requires
NIST to enhance and expand its guidance and assist Federal
agencies to help them to effectively use the NIST-authored
Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity.
The President's executive order directed each agency to use the
framework. It is my hope that this language will prompt
agencies to rely on NIST's expertise in order to adopt these
best risk management practices within their agencies.
This Committee has a long, bipartisan record of support for
NIST and its contribution to research and development. It is my
hope that all of my colleagues on the Committee will continue
that tradition and support this bill.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for bringing this important
piece of legislation up for consideration. Thank you, Ranking
Member Johnson, Ranking Member Lipinski, and other Members of
the Committee for your work with the Chairwoman and supporting
this bill.
I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Prepared Statement of Mr. Lucas
Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to speak on
behalf of my bill, H.R. 6229, the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) Reauthorization Act of 2018.
NIST works to promote U.S. innovation and industrial
competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards and
technology. This legislation authorizes NIST's Industrial
Technology Services account, construction accounts, and
bolsters the Scientific and Technical Research and Services lab
account for fiscal years 2018 and 2019.
NIST has the mission and capabilities to contribute to
areas critical to the United States' global competitiveness. To
this end, for fiscal year 2019, this legislation authorizes
increased investments in four emerging technology areas:
Quantum science, artificial intelligence and data science,
advanced communications and the internet of things and
composites research and standards development.
As we've just heard during our consideration of the
National Quantum Initiative Act of 2018, an international race
to claim quantum supremacy has begun. And it is not just in
quantum that we are racing our international rivals to develop.
By facilitating NIST's development of tools to address
performance and reliability concerns of artificial intelligence
(AI), NIST will accelerate the implementation of AI systems and
give U.S. industries a competitive edge.
The discoveries and technological advances that will stem
from these investments will significantly affect the nation's
economy in the coming decades.
One of the great challenges of the 21st Century is
cybersecurity. This legislation helps NIST address the growing
cybersecurity threat landscape by providing for the increase of
its fundamental and applied cybersecurity research to address
key questions relating to the measurement of privacy, security
and the vulnerability of software tools and communication
networks.
This committee has held multiple hearings on cybersecurity
since the news that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
was the target of two massive data breaches-exposing the
sensitive information of over 21 million Americans, including
me and many of my constituents.
Last month the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
published its ``Federal Cybersecurity Risk Determination Report
and Action Plan'' in accordance with Trump Executive Order
13800. The report identifies that 74 percent of federal
agencies participating in the risk assessment process have
cybersecurity programs that are either at risk or high risk.
The report also confirms the need to take bold approaches to
improve federal cybersecurity.
NIST plays a very important role in protecting from cyber
threats through its ongoing cybersecurity research, including
the applications of blockchain technology, and by providing
guidelines and standards to help reduce cyber risks in federal
agencies and critical infrastructure. This legislation requires
NIST to enhance and expand its guidance and assistance to
Federal Agencies to help them to effectively use the NIST-
authored ``Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure
Cybersecurity.''
The President's Executive Order directed each agency to use
the framework. It is my hope that this language will prompt
agencies to rely on NIST's expertise in order to adopt these
best risk management practices within their agencies.
This committee has a long, bipartisan record of support for
NIST and its contributions to research and development. It is
my hope that all of my colleagues on the committee will
continue that tradition and support this bill. Thank you again
Mr. Chairman for bringing this important piece of legislation
up for consideration, and thank you to Ranking Member Johnson,
Ranking Member Lipinski and the many other members of this
committee for working with me and supporting this bill. I yield
back the balance of my time.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Lucas.
I also want to mention that the sponsor of the bill,
Barbara Comstock, is at a funeral and appreciate the gentleman
from Oklahoma stepping in for her.
Mr. Lipinski. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Smith. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr.----
Mr. Lipinski. Move to strike the last word.
Chairman Smith [continuing]. Lipinski. The gentleman from
Illinois is recognized.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. I appreciate the majority moving
this bill and happy to cosponsor it with the assurances of the
manager's amendment, which I believe will momentarily be
passing. We really need--this really helps to put NIST in a
good position to carry out its work through the end of Fiscal
Year 2019. And, as we all know, NIST expertise across many
fields is critical to our economy, our research enterprise, and
our manufacturing sector.
And I want to particularly highlight the strong support for
the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership and the
Manufacturing USA programs, which received robust authorization
under the Industrial Technology Services account. And I thank
the majority for their willingness to increase the Fiscal Year
2019 authorization level to match the agency request.
I have a strong relationship with the Manufacturing USA
Institute for Digital Manufacturing located just outside my
district in Chicago. Through partnerships with universities,
manufacturers, nonprofits, and government entities, they work
to develop the technology-enabled manufacturing tools industry
needs, pilot them on the factory floor, and train the
manufacturing work force.
Beyond manufacturing, I also want to highlight the critical
position pay authority this bill gives NIST to hire talented
cybersecurity and quantum information science professionals. It
is often difficult for Federal agencies to attract top-level
talent in these fields because the Federal pay scale cannot
compete with the private sector. This bill grants a limited
exemption to the Federal pay scale to ensure that NIST will
have access to the right people to lead the Nation in
cybersecurity and quantum information science. This is an issue
that has been raised before this Committee in hearings, and so
I'm very happy that we do this in the bill. It will certainly
be very helpful to hire the people that we need. So I want to
urge my colleagues to support the bill and yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski.
We will now proceed with amendments, and the first one up
is the manager's amendment that will be offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Lucas. And he's recognized for
that purpose.
Mr. Lucas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Smith. And the clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 6229, offered by Mr. Lucas of
Oklahoma on behalf of Mrs. Comstock of Virginia, amendment
number 01.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, and the gentleman from Oklahoma is
recognized to explain the amendment.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I offer today a
manager's amendment on behalf of Chair Comstock that makes a
few changes in the bill, responding to feedback from Members of
the Committee. The amendment authorizes the current level for
NIST's Industrial Technology Services account in the fiscal
years of 2018 and 2019. It also clarifies NIST's role in
assisting Federal agencies and their staffs with using NIST's
framework for improving critical infrastructure cybersecurity.
I want to thank the Chairman, the Ranking Member, and
Ranking Member Lipinski for working with the Chairwoman on this
manager's amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support the
amendment and reserve the balance of my time.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Lucas.
Is there any further discussion on the amendment?
The gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, is recognized.
Mr. Tonko. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Chairman Smith. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I move to strike the last word because I'm relieved that we
were able to work in a bipartisan manner to restore level
funding for the Fiscal Year 2019 funding for the Industrial
Technology Service's activities, which include important
manufacturing programs such as NNMI and MEP.
Manufacturing is critical to the American economy, to jobs,
and our national security. Our manufacturing sector employs
nearly 1 in 10 of our workers, makes up some 12 percent of our
GDP.
Reports have confirmed that, on average, each manufacturing
job creates additional three to four jobs due to the required
research, development, and process design and needed supply
chain and post-sales services, as well as boosting the service
sector as a result of high-paying manufacturing jobs with an
average annual compensation of about $80,000.
Personally, I strongly believe that the government should
be a partner in working to revitalize and strengthen the U.S.
manufacturing sector and that NIST plays a vital role in this
endeavor. As a Representative for the capital region of New
York, I realize that moving toward an innovation economy is the
key to economic growth. With that in mind, I am pleased to
witness our Nation's renewed desire to invest in a high-tech
manufacturing effort and in an innovation economy.
I was proud when we came together as a Nation and made a
commitment to invest in manufacturing when we created the
first-ever national network of manufacturing hubs or National
Network of Manufacturing Initiative, NNMI, through the
overwhelming bipartisan package of the Revitalize American
Manufacturing and Innovation, or RAMI, Act. I see great hope
for these efforts if we have continued support and sustained
long-term funding, as we see in other countries.
NNMIs help accelerate Innovation by investing in
industrially relevant manufacturing technologies with broad
applications and by supporting manufacturing technology
commercialization, by bridging the gap between the laboratory
and the market.
They also support the work of MEPs. The MEP program is a
nationwide network of proven resources that enables
manufacturers to complete--or to compete rather globally,
supports greater supply chain integration, and provides access
to information, training, and technologies that improve
efficiency, productivity, and profitability.
The MEP program's well-documented impact is substantial. In
Fiscal Year 2016 alone MEP projects with small and medium-size
manufacturers created or retained some 68,477 jobs, generated
more than $8 billion in new and retained sales, and provide
cost savings of more than $1.2 billion.
I thank this Committee for continued support of NNMIs and
MEPs, which are both vital to revitalizing and supporting
American manufacturing. While I support visionary investments
that include increases and sustained long-term funding, I am
relieved that at least this funding has been restored to Fiscal
Year 2019.
And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Chairman Smith. All right. Thank you, Mr. Tonko, for those
comments.
If there's no further discussion, the question is on the
Lucas amendment.
All in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
Mr. Tonko, after that last great statement, do you still
want to offer an amendment?
Mr. Tonko. Well, I have an amendment at the desk, Mr.
Chair, but because of the manager's amendment, I don't know if
there's anyone that wants to speak to my amendment, but if not,
I would withdraw.
Chairman Smith. OK. I appreciate that. Without objection,
the amendment is withdrawn.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
Chairman Smith. OK.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Smith. The gentleman from California, Mr.
Rohrabacher, seeks recognition. What----
Mr. Rohrabacher. As we move forward with this
reauthorization, let us note that in the Constitution of the
United States at article 1, section 8 of the Constitution
establishes what authorities we have in our--what we are
dealing from, the legal authority we started and where we're
at. And in article 1, section 8, it says that the Federal
Government shall have the power to fix standards and weights
and measures. And I think that what we're doing today, I
think--when we're--when we have such a massive debt that we're
having to deal with, we need to go back and understand that
when we are doing things that are fundamental and are important
and fixing the standards and weights and measures for our
country is exactly what NIST is all about and exactly what
science is all about.
And this I believe I would just like to remind our
colleagues that we're doing something that our Founding Fathers
could envision us doing, but it's up to us to do so in a
responsible manner.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Smith. Good reminder, Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you
for that.
If there are no further amendments, a reporting quorum
being present, I move that the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology report H.R. 6229 to the House, as amended, with the
recommendation that the bill be approved.
The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 6229 to the
House.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, nay.
The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered reported
favorably.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon
the table. H.R. 6229 is ordered reported to the House. I ask
unanimous consent that the staff be authorized to make any
necessary technical and conforming changes. And without
objection, so ordered.
H.R. 6226
Chairman Smith. Great. We now go to consideration of H.R.
6226, and pursuant to notice, I call up H.R. 6226, the American
Space SAFE Management Act. And the clerk will report the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 6226, a bill to direct the Secretary of
Commerce to provide for civil space situational awareness
services and information and for other purposes.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the bill is considered
as read and open for amendment at any point. And I'll recognize
myself to speak in favor of the legislation.
The world is on the cusp of an amazing revolution in space.
Today, there are 1,100 active satellites in orbit. In a few
years, there will be tens of thousands. And a variety of new
and dynamic spacecraft will go into operation, such as private
space stations, on-orbit repair and refueling satellites, and
celestial resource prospectors. With this great increase in
activity, it is time for our Nation to lead the world by
establishing a space traffic management framework that will
ensure a safe operating environment in outer space.
The American Space SAFE Management Act addresses this
timely and important challenge facing spacefaring nations. It
does so by addressing science and technology, space situational
awareness, and space traffic management. First, this act
directs the Administration to coordinate its Federal research
and development investments in space traffic management. It
also directs the Administration to work collaboratively with
the private sector. Finally, it establishes a NASA Center of
Excellence that will develop, lead, and promote research in
space traffic management.
Second, this act creates a space situational awareness, or
SSA, program within the Department of Commerce. Commerce will
provide a basic level of SSA information and services, free of
charge, to the public. While the Department of Defense retains
the tracking sources currently used to compile the catalog of
space objects, Commerce will augment that with data from other
sources, including the private sector and foreign partners.
Many stakeholders want access not only to SSA services but
also to the underlying data, so this act establishes a space
situational awareness testbed that complements the broader SSA
program. This testbed will allow the public to access certain
SSA data subject to relevant national security and foreign
policy concerns.
Third, a space traffic management framework will be
established. This framework will be built on top-down voluntary
guidelines developed by the government, bottom-up standards
developed by industry, and a pilot space traffic coordination
program. The pilot program will allow the government and
stakeholders to experiment and learn more about the best ways
to manage space traffic. This framework is a commonsense first
step in what will be a long-term process of developing a
comprehensive space traffic management framework.
The American Space SAFE Management Act is the culmination
of years of work that this Committee has undertaken. Over 4
years ago, this Committee held its first of several hearings on
space traffic management followed by many hearings, roundtable
events, and meetings with stakeholders. The Space SAFE
Management Act has the full support of the President; Vice
President; the National Space Council; and Secretaries of
Defense, Transportation, and Commerce.
Original co-sponsors include Space Subcommittee Chairman
Brian Babin, Representative Bera, Representative Lucas,
Representative Perlmutter, and Representative Rohrabacher.
Thanks go to the Committee Members and staff for developing
this history-making, commonsense, bipartisan bill.
Prepared Statement of Chairman Smith
The world is on the cusp of an amazing revolution in space.
Today, there are eleven hundred active satellites in orbit. In
a few years, there will be tens of thousands. And, a variety of
new and dynamic spacecraft will go into operation, such as
private space stations, on-orbit repair and refueling
satellites and celestial resource prospectors.
With this great increase in activity, it is time for our
nation to lead the world by establishing a space traffic
management framework that will ensure a safe operating
environment in outer space.
The American Space SAFE Management Act addresses this
timely and important challenge facing spacefaring nations. It
does so by addressing science and technology, space situational
awareness, and space traffic management.
First, this act directs the administration to coordinate
its Federal research and development investments in space
traffic management. It also directs the administration to work
collaboratively with the private sector. Finally, it
establishes a NASA Center of Excellence that will develop, lead
and promote research in space traffic management.
Second, this act creates a civil space situational
awareness (SSA) program within the Department of Commerce.
Commerce will provide a basic level of SSA information and
services, free of charge, to the public. While the Department
of Defense retains the tracking sources currently used to
compile the catalog of space objects, Commerce will augment
that with data from other sources, including the private sector
and foreign partners.
Many stakeholders want access not only to SSA services but
also to the underlying data. So this act establishes a space
situational awareness testbed that complements the broader SSA
program. This testbed will allow the public to access certain
SSA data subject to relevant national security and foreign
policy concerns.
Third, a space traffic management framework will be
established. This framework will be built on top-down voluntary
guidelines developed by the government, bottom-up standards
developed by industry and a pilot space traffic coordination
program.
The pilot program will allow the government and
stakeholders to experiment and learn more about the best ways
to manage space traffic. This framework is a commonsense first
step in what will be a long-term process of developing a
comprehensive space traffic management framework.
The American Space SAFE Management Act is the culmination
of years of work that this committee has undertaken. Over four
years ago, this committee held its first of several hearings on
space traffic management followed by many hearings, roundtable
events and meetings with stakeholders.
The Space SAFE Management Act has the full support of the
president, vice-president, the National Space Council, and the
Secretaries of Defense, Transportation and Commerce.
Original co-sponsors include Space Subcommittee Chairman
Brian Babin, Rep. Bera, Rep. Lucas, Rep. Perlmutter and Rep.
Rohrabacher. Thanks go to the committee members and staff for
developing this history-making, common sense, bipartisan bill.
Chairman Smith. At this time, I ask unanimous consent to
enter in the record letters of support for the American Space
SAFE Management Act from the following organizations:
Commercial Spaceflight Federation, a trade association with
over 80 members, companies, and organizations; Bigelow
Aerospace; Maxar; and SpaceX.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
That concludes my statement.
And do you want to be recognized? No.
And we will now proceed with amendments in the order listed
in the roster, and the first amendment on the roster is a
manager's amendment, and I'll recognize myself to offer the
amendment. And the clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 6226, offered by Mr. Smith of
Texas, amendment number 002.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, and I recognize myself to explain the
amendment.
This amendment represents a good-faith effort to
incorporate constructive feedback received from Representative
Bera and Representative Perlmutter and other stakeholders after
the bill was noticed for markup.
This amendment directs the Secretaries of Commerce and
Defense, in coordination with relevant agencies, to submit a
plan outlining the transition of space situational awareness
information and services program to the Department of Commerce
and how a gap in providing SSA information and services will be
prevented.
This amendment clarifies that the Secretary of Commerce may
leverage existing work force and experience of other Federal
agencies.
The amendment also makes it clear that the policy of the
United States is to timely develop voluntary civil space
traffic coordination guidelines, practices, and standards to
ensure a safe operating environment and inform the development
of a comprehensive space traffic management framework.
Finally, the Secretary of Commerce is directed to report
biannually on recommendations to facilitate the development of
a comprehensive space traffic management framework. I firmly
believe this amendment improves and strengthens the policy of
the American Space SAFE Management Act.
And I thank Representatives Bera and Perlmutter for their
constructive engagement and negotiation of these policy
provisions. It is a better bill as a result.
Is there further discussion?
The gentleman from California, Mr. Bera, the Ranking
Member, is recognize for his----
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith [continuing]. Comments.
Mr. Bera. As you've already noted, we've had multiple
hearings on the complexity of space and the importance of space
traffic management, and so I'm glad that this process continues
to move forward.
As we discussed at the hearing last week in the
Subcommittee, you know, it still remains to be seen what the
best transition looks like, but we all agree that there does
need to be a transition. And I'm glad that the Chairman was
able to direct DOD and Commerce through the manager's amendment
and improving the bill to come back to Congress for a report on
what this would look like.
I think General Hyten said it best in--you know, when he
described, you know, if you're walking on a wing and a wing-
walker, you don't let go of one strut until you're firmly
holding the next strut. And, you know, let's make sure have a
firm grip on that next strut before we let go of this--the
current DOD strategy.
So, again, I thank the Chairman for, you know, accepting
some of the suggestions that Mr. Perlmutter and I made, and I
think it does make the bill a better bill. And I'll be
supporting the bill.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Bera.
And the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Perlmutter, is
recognized.
I might warn the gentleman there's nothing about Mars in
this amendment.
Mr. Perlmutter. Move to strike the last word.
Chairman Smith. And the gentleman's recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate the
Chairman's willingness to work with me and Congressman Bera in
connection with this bill. I think this is an important bill.
Obviously, from the testimony we heard last week from General
Hyten, Administrator Bridenstine, and Secretary Ross, and we
know on this Committee that as we continue to launch, as we
continue to add satellites and CubeSats, as the debris
continues to mount, we have to have management of the traffic
up there.
And within this bill, we talk about space situational
awareness. That's really knowing what is up there and where it
is, and that would be primarily the Defense Department's
responsibility to pinpoint. And then under the bill to have
Commerce working with NASA, DOD, and other agencies develop
this management plan in case of collisions and figuring out
who's in what lane and the like.
And so one of the things that we've done--and I appreciate
the majority's willing to work with us in this manager's
amendment is to make sure that Commerce has sufficient
personnel either through NASA's cooperation or Department of
Defense's cooperation to be able to do this right.
And so we'll figure out as we develop this space
situational awareness and space traffic management, you know,
who's doing what, but we have to get busy. And I appreciate the
Chairman's taking this bill and moving forward.
I do want us to continue to visit about this because I
think there are some other sections we do need to talk about so
that they aren't counterproductive, and that would be the
section on immunity, which is found on page 9, lines 3 through
11. We ought to talk about that some more as the bill proceeds.
And then also as to the voluntary guidelines because at
some point there needs to be the ability to enforce who's in
what lane, who was negligent, who did what. And it's not just
going to be a voluntary kind of a setting I don't think because
I liken it to actual traffic management here on Earth, to make
sure people know how things are being managed and who's in what
lane.
But I think this is a--really a good approach. I'm prepared
to support it. And I thank the Chairman for working with us in
trying to figure out how best to implement this management
program.
I yield back.
Chairman Smith. OK. Thank you, Mr. Perlmutter, for your
contributions to the bill through the amendment. And you
mentioned liability, which we all know is a delicate balance,
but we can continue to try to address that as well.
If there's no further discussion on the amendment, all in
favor, say aye.
Those opposed, no.
The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
We'll now go to what I believe will be the last amendment
of the day, and this will be an amendment offered by the
Ranking Member, the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson. She's
recognized for that purpose.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment
at the desk.
Chairman Smith. And the clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R.
6226, offered by Ms. Johnson of Texas, amendment number 001.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, and the gentlewoman is recognized to
explain her amendment.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My amendment is very straightforward. It would direct NASA
Administrator to enter into an arrangement with the National
Academies to carry out an assessment of what capabilities are
needed for the provision of civil Federal Government space
situational awareness data, information, and services, as well
as what capabilities currently exist at Federal agencies to
meet these needs.
The assessment would provide a recommendation to Congress
as to which agencies should be the lead in delivering the space
situational awareness functions. The National Academies would
deliver this assessment to Congress within 1 year.
The intent of my amendment is also very straightforward. It
is intended to give Congress the information it will need to
determine which government agency should be the lead for the
provision of civil space situational awareness or SSA. Because
we should not simply rubberstamp the Trump Administration's
proposal to have the Department of Commerce be the lead agency
any more than we should simply adopt the interagency consensus
reached in the Obama Administration that FAA should be the
lead.
As was strongly argued by at least one Member of the first
of last Friday's hearing on SSA, the one we have held on the
topic in more than 4 years, the Administration can propose its
approach to civil SSA, but Congress then needs to do its job
and engage in serious oversight, hold hearings in here from a
broad array of stakeholders. Only after it has been done--it
has done its own work on the issue and examined the
Administration's proposals in depth can Congress make informed
decisions about the best way to proceed.
This Committee has somehow found the time to hold at least
five hearings under our Chairman on the search of alien life,
an interesting topic to be sure, but with little legislative
relevance. At the same time, we can't be bothered to seriously
investigate the legislative and policy proposals put forth by
the current Administration. We're once again rushing to a
markup today without having first done our homework and our job
as legislators, and so we will once again mark up a bill that
has received very little serious scrutiny.
My amendment would allow the rush to be blindly fall in
line--would slow the rush to the--blindly fall in line behind
this Administration's plan and instead let us make sure the
independent and objective analysis of the National Academies.
Some may say that we can't afford to wait a year to get the
information we need, but I ask why not? The DOD is going to
continue to provide their SSA services. It is not going to
unilaterally walk away from that responsibility. We are not
risking anything by taking time to do our job as Members of
Congress.
I had planned to offer an amendment that would have
assigned the lead SSA responsibility to our Nation's premiere
space agency NASA to make the point that there are serious
alternatives to Commerce that need to be considered by
Congress. In many ways, it makes more sense to assign the role
to NASA. NASA already works closely with DOD on SSA and on
collision avoidance. It has a wealth of knowledge and
experience and resources that it can bring to bear. NASA has
demonstrated the ability to garner international support on
past issues, and I believe it can do the same for SSA and space
traffic management because it is trusted as an unbiased,
neutral agency.
Some will say that while NASA is the most qualified civil
agency to do the job, they're not a regulatory agency. I agree.
NASA is not a regulatory agency. But as I read the bill, there
are no regulatory responsibilities defined or mandated in the
lead civil agency for SSA. But at the end of the day, I'm not
prepared to say that NASA is the answer even if it appears to
be an obviously better choice than Commerce.
We simply do not yet have enough information to make an
informed decision. This is why we need the National Academies
to help us understand these complex issues. We might not agree
with the Academies' recommendation, but if in the meantime we
are also doing our job as a Committee and holding hearings and
getting input from experts and stakeholders, we will be far
better prepared to legislate in this area after we get the
Academies' assessment.
And there could be serious consequences if we get this
wrong. In the past, when Congress has legislated haphazardly
and assigned brand-new functions to agencies ill-equipped to
deal with them, bad things have happened. Assigned SSA function
to an unprepared agency could end up costing the Federal
Government a lot of wasted money and time, and we stand up to
what is essentially a new agency when other better alternatives
may already exist.
In summary, my amendment is really a Science Committee do-
your-job amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it. And
I thank you and yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
And I'll recognize myself in opposition to the amendment.
This amendment would direct the National Academy of Science
to conduct an assessment and recommend a space traffic
management framework. I don't think we need to wait for another
study on this topic. Congress has asked and received similar
studies. Pursuant to the Commercial Space Launch
Competitiveness Act of 2015, NASA delivered to Congress over 18
months ago a report on, quote, ``frameworks for the management
of space traffic and orbital activities,'' end quote.
In addition, the Institute for Defense Analyses did a
report, which is publicly available, for the Obama
Administration in 2016 evaluating options for civil space
situational awareness. It is time for us to act.
As General Hyten and Administrator Bridenstine testified
last week, time is critical. The number of commercial
satellites in space are predicted to grow from 1,300 active
satellites today to more than 10,000 in just the next few
years. If we don't develop a space traffic management framework
immediately, we risk the safety of the space operational
environment, so I have to oppose the amendment.
Is there any further discussion?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment
offered by Ms. Johnson.
All in favor, say aye.
Ms. Johnson. I ask for record vote.
Chairman Smith. A recorded vote has been requested, and the
clerk will call the roll. And let me say we may be leaving the
vote open for a couple of minutes, too, depending on the
result. No, I think we've got--I take it back. I think we've
got good representation over here. OK.
The Clerk. Mr. Smith?
Chairman Smith. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes no.
Mr. Lucas?
Mr. Lucas. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Lucas votes no.
Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
Mr. Brooks?
Mr. Brooks. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Brooks votes no.
Mr. Hultgren?
Mr. Hultgren. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Hultgren votes no.
Mr. Posey?
Mr. Posey. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Posey votes no.
Mr. Massie?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Weber?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Knight?
Mr. Knight. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Knight votes no.
Mr. Babin?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mrs. Comstock?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk?
Mr. Loudermilk. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk votes no.
Mr. Abraham?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Palmer?
Mr. Palmer. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Palmer votes no.
Mr. Webster?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Biggs?
Mr. Biggs. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes no.
Mr. Marshall?
Mr. Marshall. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Marshall votes no.
Mr. Dunn?
Mr. Dunn. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Dunn votes no.
Mr. Higgins?
Mr. Higgins. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Higgins votes no.
Mr. Norman?
Mr. Norman. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Norman votes no.
Mrs. Lesko?
Mrs. Lesko. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko votes no.
Ms. Johnson?
Ms. Johnson. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes yes.
Ms. Lofgren?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Lipinski?
Mr. Lipinski. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Lipinski votes yes.
Ms. Bonamici?
Ms. Bonamici. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Bonamici votes yes.
Mr. Bera?
Mr. Bera. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Bera votes no.
Ms. Esty?
Ms. Esty. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Esty votes yes.
Mr. Veasey?
Mr. Veasey. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Veasey votes yes.
Mr. Beyer?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Rosen?
Ms. Rosen. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Rosen votes yes.
Mr. Lamb?
Mr. Lamb. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Lamb votes yes.
Mr. McNerney?
Mr. McNerney. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. McNerney votes yes.
Mr. Perlmutter?
Mr. Perlmutter. My Ranking Member makes a lot of good
points, but no.
The Clerk. Mr. Perlmutter votes no.
Mr. Tonko?
Mr. Tonko. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Tonko votes yes.
Mr. Foster?
Mr. Foster. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Foster votes yes.
Mr. Takano?
Mr. Takano. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Takano votes yes.
Ms. Hanabusa?
Ms. Hanabusa. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Hanabusa votes yes.
Mr. Crist?
Mr. Crist. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Crist votes yes.
Chairman Smith. You got back. Thank you. Do we have some--
who's on their way? The clerk will report the vote.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, 13 Members have voted yes, 17
Members have voted no.
Chairman Smith. OK. And the amendment is not agreed to.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5710.460
If there are no further amendments, a reporting quorum
being present, I move that the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology report H.R. 6226, as amended, to the House with the
recommendation that the bill be approved.
The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 6226 to the
House, as amended.
All those in favor, say aye.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Smith. Who seeks to be recognized? The gentleman
from California in the middle of a vote wants to be recognized.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I tried to get your attention before you
called the vote.
Chairman Smith. OK. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I'll make this very quick. I'd just like
to express my strong support for this bill, H.R. 6226. Just to
note that I've been working on legislation like this for about
20 years, and so I'm very gratified by your leadership and the
unanimity that we have among our colleagues to actually provide
a useful nonregulatory approach to dealing with very serious
challenges of space debris, space situational awareness, and
space traffic coordination.
This act lays the foundation for developing the
technologies that will enable private industry and--as well as
government and provide the development of the standards and the
framework that will lead us to the best solutions of these very
serious challenges that, as I say, for 15 years I've been
talking about debris, and I'm gratified that we have taken it
seriously and that this Administration is taking it seriously.
This is a major step in the right direction that will
enable us to deal with roadblocks that if we do not deal with
these roadblocks, we will be prevented from utilizing to its
best degree the benefits of space for our country and for all
mankind.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher, for those
constructive comments.
And the gentlewoman from Texas, the Ranking Member, Ms.
Johnson, is also recognized for her comments.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
That statement supports why I want us to do our work well,
and I want to thank Mr. Rohrabacher for making my point. I will
not object to the passing of this legislation, but I want the
record to reflect that we have a responsibility to do the work
that we were sent here to do for the good of the people of the
Nation.
Chairman Smith. OK. Thank you, too, Ms. Johnson.
The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 6226 to the
House, as amended.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, nay.
The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered reported
favorably.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon
the table. H.R. 6227 is ordered reported to the House. I ask
unanimous consent that staff be authorized to make any
necessary technical and conforming changes. Without objection,
so ordered.
Before we adjourn, I just want to--this is probably the
best turnout we've had of Members of this Committee, and I just
appreciate everybody's participation and presence. And I also
want to especially thank the staff. We had staff on both sides
of four Subcommittees involved with these three bills, and for
some reason Chris Wydler always seems to be in the middle of
everything. But anyway, we appreciate the work of all the staff
on both sides.
And also, I think this--let me make a rough prediction here
that when we finish our suspension votes on the floor this
afternoon, I think the Committee will have successfully taken
33 bills to the floor, 30 of which were bipartisan, so it's a
credit to Members of this Committee on both sides.
If there's no further discussion, that completes our
business. This concludes the Science Committee markup. Without
objection, the Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:19 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
H.R. 6227, Amendment Roster, H.R. 6229, H.R. 6226, Amendment Roster
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE
MARKUP ON H.R. 6398,
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
VETERANS' HEALTH INITIATIVE ACT
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 18, 2018
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:09 a.m., in
room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar
Smith [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Chairman Smith. The Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is
authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any time.
Pursuant to Committee rule 2(e) and House rule XI(2)(h)(4),
the Chair announces that he may postpone roll call votes on the
following bill, which we meet to consider, H.R. 6398, the
Department of Energy Veterans' Health Initiative Act.
I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
Today, we consider H.R. 6398, the Department of Energy
Veterans' Health Initiative Act, introduced by Energy
Subcommittee Member Ralph Norman and co-sponsored by joint
Veterans Affairs and Science Committee Members Neal Dunn and
Clay Higgins, as well as 12 other Science Committee Members.
This legislation authorizes the Department of Energy to
conduct collaborative research with the Department of Veterans
Affairs in order to solve complex, big-data challenges focused
on veterans' health care and basic science.
Currently, DOE and the VA collaborate through the Million
Veterans Program-Computational Health Analytics for Medical
Precision to Improve Outcomes Now, or MVP-CHAMPION program,
which is the longest acronym I've ever encountered. And I
forgot to ask which staff Member came up with that. We'll talk
later on. Oh, DOE, OK.
Through this initiative, the VA collects genomic and
healthcare data from veterans who volunteer for the program.
The VA then provides this data to DOE, where it is stored in a
secure site at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. This partnership
provides VA researchers access to DOE's high-performance
computing research facilities, like the world's fastest
supercomputer, the Summit computer at Oak Ridge. It also
leverages DOE's expertise in complex modeling and data
analysis, which can help the VA use their data to learn more
about the causes and warning signs of various diseases.
By giving DOE access to a large-scale data base, the VA
will help the Energy Department develop next-generation
computing, algorithms, and modeling capability. While these
tools can help the VA develop quality health care for veterans,
they can also be applied to computing efforts in support of
DOE's core mission programs, such as materials science,
physics, or nuclear weapons research.
This legislation will leverage DOE's world-leading
computing capability to provide the VA with data analysis to
improve veterans' quality of life.
Mr. Norman's bill also authorizes a 2-year, crosscutting
research pilot program to advance research in artificial
intelligence, data analytics, and computational research. This
pilot program supports DOE's efforts to improve the analysis
and interpretation of big-data challenges to meet the nuclear
security, energy, and science mission goals of the Department.
It will facilitate more collaborations like DOE's work with the
VA, giving Federal agencies, academia, and industry the chance
to benefit from the Department's expertise.
I thank the bill's sponsors for bringing this important
legislation before us today.
And finally, we are postponing action on the other bill
noticed for this morning to address jurisdictional concerns.
Prepared Statement of Chairman Smith
Today we will consider H.R. 6398, the Department of Energy
Veterans' Health Initiative Act, introduced by Energy
Subcommittee member Ralph Norman, and co-sponsored by joint
Veterans Affairs and Science Committee members Neal Dunn and
Clay Higgins, as well as 12 other Science Committee members.
This legislation authorizes the Department of Energy (DOE)
to conduct collaborative research with the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) in order to solve complex, big data
challenges focused on veteran's health care and basic science.
Currently, DOE and the VA collaborate through the ``Million
Veterans Program-Computational Health Analytics for Medical
Precision to Improve Outcomes Now,'' or MVP-CHAMPION program.
Through this initiative, the VA collects genomic and health
care data from veterans who volunteer for the program. The VA
then provides this data to DOE, where it is stored in a secure
site at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
This partnership provides VA researchers access to DOE's
high performance computing research facilities-like the world's
fastest supercomputer, the Summit computer at Oak Ridge. It
also leverages DOE's expertise in complex modeling and data
analysis, which can help the VA use their data to learn more
about the causes and warning signs of various diseases.
By giving DOE access to a large-scale database, the VA will
help the Energy Department develop next generation computing,
algorithms and modeling capability.
While these tools can help the VA develop quality
healthcare for veterans, they can also be applied to computing
efforts in support of DOE's core mission programs, such as
materials science, physics or nuclear weapons research.
This legislation will leverage DOE's world-leading
computing capability to provide the VA with data analysis to
improve veterans' quality of life.
Mr. Norman's bill also authorizes a two-year, cross-cutting
research pilot program to advance research in artificial
intelligence, data analytics and computational research. This
pilot program supports DOE's efforts to improve the analysis
and interpretation of big data challenges to meet the nuclear
security, energy and science mission goals of the Department.
It will facilitate more collaborations like DOE's work with
the VA, giving federal agencies, academia and industry the
chance to benefit from the Department's expertise. I thank the
bill's sponsors for bringing this important legislation before
us today.
Finally, we are postponing action on the other bill noticed
for this morning to address jurisdictional matters related to
the bill. We plan to take action on the bill in the near
future.
Chairman Smith. With that, I'll yield to the Ranking
Member, the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, for her
opening statement.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And good
morning to everyone.
Today, we are marking up the Department of Energy's
Veterans' Health Initiative Act. This bill codifies actions
that were proposed in the last budget request. The bill
authorizes the Department of Energy or DOE to conduct
collaborative research with Department of Veterans Affairs in
order to address complex, large data-management challenges
associated with veterans' healthcare issues.
This bill also directs DOE to carry out a 2-year research
pilot program to advance research in artificial intelligence
and data analytics for a broad range of potential applications.
These are both worthy ideas, and I support both of these
activities. For that reason, I will not oppose the passage of
this bill today. However, I think these worthy activities could
have been better addressed by our Committee if we had been a
little bit more thoughtful in drafting this legislation.
When this bill was noticed for markup last Friday, the bill
had still not been vetted by the VA or the Veterans' Affairs
Committee. Given that the bill is about veterans' affairs, that
seems like a pretty big oversight.
We're going to consider the manager's amendment to address
some of the concerns that we have heard from them, and I
understand that the VA has expressed concern about the bill in
general. Perhaps if we really wanted to help the veterans at
the heart of this bill, we should have legislated with a little
bit more care because passing this bill out of Committee today
doesn't accomplish anything if the bill ends up dying in the
Veterans' Affairs Committee.
I would note that this bill has already been referred to
the Veterans' Affairs Committee, so I think it is vitally
important that we work collaboratively with them on this
legislation as we move forward.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Prepared Statement of Ms. Johnson
Thank you, Chairman Smith, and good morning to everyone.
Today we are marking up the Department of Energy Veterans'
Health Initiative Act. This bill codifies actions that were
proposed in the last budget request. The bill authorizes the
Department of Energy (DOE) to conduct collaborative research
with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in order to
address complex, large data management challenges associated
with veterans' health care issues.
This bill also directs DOE to carry out a two-year research
pilot program to advance research in artificial intelligence
and data analytics for a broad range of potential applications.
These are both worthy ideas, and I support both of these
activities. For that reason, I will not oppose passage of this
bill today. However, I think these worthy activities could have
been better addressed by our Committee if we had been a little
more thoughtful in drafting this legislation. When this bill
was noticed for markup last Friday, the bill had still not been
vetted by the VA or the Veterans Affairs Committee. Given that
the bill is about veterans affairs, that seems like a big
oversight. We are going to consider a Manager's Amendment to
address some of the concerns that we've now heard from them,
but I understand that the VA has expressed concern about the
bill in general.
Perhaps if we really wanted to help the veterans at the
heart of this bill, we should have legislated with a little
more care, because passing this bill out of Committee today
doesn't accomplish anything if the bill ends up dying at the
Veterans Affairs Committee. I would note that this bill has
already been referred to the Veterans Affairs Committee. So I
think it is vitally important that we work collaboratively with
them on this legislation as we move forward.
I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 6398, the Department
of Energy Veterans' Health Initiative Act, and the clerk will
report the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 6398, a bill to authorize the Department of
Energy to conduct collaborative research with the Department of
Veterans Affairs in order to improve healthcare services for
veterans in the United States and for other purposes.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the bill is considered
as read and open for amendment at any point. And I'll recognize
myself briefly to comment on the legislation.
H.R. 6398 maximizes the impact of Department of Energy
resources, research, and expertise, and ensures that the
Department of Veterans Affairs can provide the best possible
care to our veterans.
I look forward to hearing from the bill's sponsors and
encourage my colleagues to support this bill.
I now recognize the bill's sponsor, the gentleman from
South Carolina, Mr. Norman, to speak on the legislation.
Mr. Norman. Thank you, Chairman Smith and Ranking Member
Johnson.
I got an excited call this morning from a military vet
who--and I didn't realize this, but Marcus Latrell, the lone
survivor whose publicized brother is a vital part of this
action that we've decided to take today, which adds more
emphasis to it.
My bill--as has been said, my bill authorizes partnership
between DOE and the Department of Veterans Affairs to advance
research focused on artificial intelligence, big-data science,
and the high-priority health care needs of the Veterans
Administration.
Because of the millions of veterans that have received care
over time, the VA hosts one of the world's largest and most
valuable health and genomic data repositories. In order to
learn from this data and provide better health care for
veterans, the VA needs access to more advanced computing
capabilities, expertise, and infrastructure than is currently
available within the agency.
DOE is a world leader in high-performance computing and is
well-suited to meet this need. With its national laboratory
system, DOE has a unique set of cutting-edge research
capabilities like six of the world's ten fastest computers,
which were designed to solve a variety of complex big-data
challenges in the physical sciences.
The interagency partnership authorizes in my bill combines
DOE's big-data science expertise with VA clinical and
population science expertise in order to solve critical
healthcare challenges for veterans, while promising to advance
big-data science tools for American researchers.
This partnership, called the Million Veterans Program-
Computational Health Analytics for Medical Precision to Improve
Outcomes Now or MVP-CHAMPION--the most valuable champion
program--will use DOE supercomputers to analyze VA health data,
looking for patterns and symptoms to improve treatment for
heart disease, traumatic brain injury, and cancer.
The bill also requires the Department to establish data
enclaves to securely store and transmit data provided by the
VA, making sure privacy and security are maintained for
veterans involved in this program.
In addition, this legislation establishes a pilot program
within DOE to implement a crosscutting research initiative in
artificial intelligence, data analytics, and computational
research. This program will help DOE scientists gain
fundamental knowledge and improved understanding of big-data
analytics tools in order to address big-data challenges. These
tools will both help improve the existing DOE-VA partnership
and will advance DOE mission goals in nuclear security, energy
technology development, and innovative science research.
Ultimately, the goal of this legislation is for the DOE
national laboratories to provide the VA with information it can
use to improve healthcare services for veterans. The access to
the breadth, depth, and complexity of the VA dataset will also
advance the next generation of data science tools.
The DOE Veterans' Health Initiative Act promises to improve
veterans' health care and advance DOE capabilities in computer
science. Our veterans should have access to better healthcare
services, and our scientists should remain on the cutting edge
of big-data analytics and advanced computing.
Once again, I would like to thank Chairman Smith and the
other Science Committee Members who cosponsored this
legislation for supporting my bill. I encourage my colleagues
to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Prepared Statement of Mr. Norman
Thank you, Chairman Smith, for the opportunity to speak on
behalf of my bill, H.R. 6398, the Department of Energy
Veterans' Health Initiative Act.
My bill authorizes partnership between the Department of
Energy (DOE) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to
advance research focused on artificial intelligence, big data
science and the high priority health care needs of the VA.
Because of the millions of veterans that have received care
overtime, the VA hosts one of the world's largest and most
valuable health and genomic data repositories.
In order to learn from this data and provide better health
care for veterans, the VA needs access to more advanced
computing capabilities, expertise and infrastructure than is
currently available in the agency.
DOE is a world leader in high performance computing, and is
well suited to meet this need. With its national laboratory
system, DOE has a unique set of cutting-edge research
capabilities-like six of the world's ten fastest
supercomputers-designed to solve a variety of complex big data
challenges in the physical sciences.
The interagency partnership authorized in my bill combines
DOE's big data science expertise with VA clinical and
population science expertise in order to solve critical health
challenges for veterans, while promising to advance big data
science tools for American researchers.
This partnership-called the Million Veterans Program-
Computational Health Analytics for Medical Precision to Improve
Outcomes Now or MVP-CHAMPION program-will use DOE
supercomputers to analyze VA health data, looking for patterns
and symptoms to improve treatment for heart disease, traumatic
brain injury and cancer.
The bill also requires the Department to establish data
enclaves to securely store and transmit data provided by the
VA, making sure privacy and security are maintained for
veterans involved in the program.
In addition, this legislation establishes a pilot program
within DOE to implement a crosscutting research initiative in
artificial intelligence, data analytics and computational
research.
This program will help DOE scientists gain fundamental
knowledge and improved understanding of big data analytics
tools in order to address big data challenges.
These tools will both help improve the existing DOE-VA
partnership, and will advance DOE mission goals in nuclear
security, energy technology development and innovative science
research.
Ultimately, the goal of this legislation is for the DOE
national laboratories to provide the VA with information it can
use to improve health care services for veterans. The access to
the breadth, depth and complexity of the VA dataset will also
advance the next generation of data science tools.
The Department of Energy Veterans' Health Initiative Act
promises to improve veterans' health care and advance DOE
capabilities in computer science.
Our veterans should have access to better health care
services and our scientists should remain on the cutting edge
of big data analytics and advanced computing.
Once again, I would like to thank Chairman Smith and the 13
other Science Committee members who cosponsored this
legislation for supporting my bill. I encourage my colleagues
to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Norman.
I understand the gentleman from California, Mr. Takano, has
a comment on the bill, and he's recognized for that purpose.
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Chairman Smith and Ranking Member
Johnson. I move to strike the last word.
I want to express my concerns for how this bill has been
handled. I support the aims of the bill, and I think everyone
here agrees that leveraging technology to improve the health of
veterans is a good thing. However, the VA and the Department of
Energy already have a reimbursement agreement in place to do
this work. And Veterans' Affairs Committee staff have informed
me that this bill might actually make it more difficult for the
two departments to continue this work.
Now, I'm encouraged the manager's amendment seeks to
address the VA's concerns, but in the future we need to be
engaging agencies sooner and all the stakeholders involved
sooner. While I think we should be devoting more resources for
veterans' health care and research, it is essential that we
spend the money effectively.
I know the VA has expressed concerns about how they would
spend the money in this bill and the program's duplicative
nature. Just yesterday, I presided over a hearing in Veterans'
Affairs Committee where Federal employee representatives told
us VA is struggling to find and retain high-quality staff. Now,
when we write legislation that affects multiple agencies like
this, it is important that we take time to consult all the
stakeholders.
I'm very proud of the bipartisan manner in which we often
work when it comes to veterans' issues, as many of my
colleagues here know who serve on both Committees of
jurisdiction. In the future, and as we move forward on this
bill, I hope we can work together to make sure we get this
right.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Takano.
We will now go to amendments, and the only amendment I'm
aware of I believe will be offered by the gentleman from
Florida, Mr. Dunn, and he's recognized for that purpose.
Mr. Dunn. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Smith. And the clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 6398, offered by Mr. Dunn of
Florida, amendment number 01. Page 5, line 13, insert an order
to carry out a reimbursable agreement after memorandum of
understanding. Page 6, line 11, strike section 4 and all that
follows through 2020 and line 12 and insert the following:
``section during fiscal years 2019 through 2013.''
Chairman Smith. And without objection, the amendment is
considered as read and the gentleman is recognized to explain
his amendment.
Mr. Dunn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
introduce my amendment. This straightforward amendment makes
technical changes requested by the Department of Veterans
Affairs. My amendment reflects how the VA manages the research
program authorized in the bill, and it includes language to
ensure the appropriate structure for interagency cooperation
between the VA and the Department of Energy.
As the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Health on Veterans
Affairs, a Member of this Committee, Science, Space, and
Technology, and as a veteran myself, I'm happy to be an
original cosponsor of Mr. Norman's legislation. The
collaborative research authorized in this bill provides the VA
researchers access to the Department of Energy's high-
performance computing systems, systems capable of making over
200,000 trillion calculations per second. That's properly 200
quintillion calculations per second. In turn, the Department of
Energy receives an access to a massive treasure trove of rich,
contextualized data from the Veterans Administration.
VA patients have volunteered for many years genomic and
healthcare data that the Department of Energy transferred to a
secure data site in Oak Ridge. Part of the data includes the
most detailed DNA sequencing, allowing for high-quality genomic
research. With a rich and expansive dataset, the VA's Million
Veterans Program provides an incredible opportunity to use
DOE's next-generation quantum computing capabilities to study
and solve complex healthcare problems, problems that were
previously beyond our reach.
My colleagues on this Committee and I first heard about
this DOE-VA research partnership during a tour of Argonne
National Laboratories in May. Not only were DOE researchers
excited to develop new methods to help our veterans, but the
DOE and the VA have potential to solve healthcare problems for
all Americans by applying these analytical methods, models, and
whatnot that are developed through this program.
I'm pleased that the Science Committee has worked so hard
and so closely with the House Veterans' Affairs Committee in
developing my amendment, which addresses the VA's technical
changes and recommendations to improve this bill. I look
forward to our continued collaboration on H.R. 6398 and
hopefully many other similar projects in the future.
I want to thank Representative Ralph Norman and Chairman
Lamar Smith and all of my Science Committee colleagues for
their leadership and support of this important and exciting
legislation. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Dunn.
And the Ranking Member, the gentlewoman from Texas, is
recognized for her comments.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I move to
strike the last word.
I support the adoption of this amendment. It addresses some
of the concerns that we've heard from the VA and it makes the
bill a better bill. However, as I noted in my opening
statement, it would have made more sense to have consulted with
the VA and the Veterans' Affairs Committee prior to announcing
the markup. Then we probably wouldn't have needed this
amendment, and more importantly, the bill would face such an--
would not be facing such an uncertain future.
I thank you and yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
Is there any further discussion on the amendment?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment
offered by Mr. Dunn.
All in favor, say aye.
Opposed no.
The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
If there are no further amendments, a reporting quorum
being present, I move that the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology report H.R. 6398 to the House, as amended, with the
recommendation that the bill be approved.
The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 6398 to the
House, as amended.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, nay.
The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered reported
favorably.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon
the table. H.R. 6398 is ordered reported to the House.
I ask unanimous consent that staff be authorized to make
any necessary technical and conforming changes. Without
objection, so ordered.
And the gentlewoman from Texas seeks recognition.
Ms. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to welcome our new
Member, Mr. Cloud----
Chairman Smith. No, no, wait a minute. Wait a minute.
Ms. Johnson. Oh, I'm sorry.
Chairman Smith. I'm just getting ready to do that.
Ms. Johnson. OK.
Chairman Smith. You can't----
Ms. Johnson. I'll wait.
Chairman Smith. You--I--you can't get ahead of me on this.
And--you weren't looking at my notes or you would have
seen----
Ms. Johnson. No, I didn't.
Chairman Smith [continuing]. He was up next.
Ms. Johnson. I should have been looking over there.
Chairman Smith. OK. And I would like to welcome and
obviously recognize the newest Member of the Science Committee,
the gentleman from Texas' 27th District, Michael Cloud.
Michael, welcome.
There is absolutely no truth whatsoever to the rumor that
we are stacking the Committee with Texans, but it just so
happens this is the newest Member. And we had a great position
for him. His Subcommittees will be announced shortly.
Michael, thanks.
OK. If there's no further discussion, that completes our
business. This concludes the Science Committee markup. Without
objection, the Committee stands adjourned. Thank you all.
[Whereupon, at 10:23 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
H.R. 6398, Amendment Roster
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE
MARKUPS: S. 141, SPACE WEATHER
RESEARCH AND FORECASTING ACT;
AND H.R. 6468,
IMPROVING SCIENCE IN
CHEMICAL ASSESSMENTS ACT
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 24, 2018
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:55 p.m., in
room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar
Smith [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Chairman Smith. The Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is
authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any time.
Pursuant to Committee rule 2(e) and House rule XI(2)(h)(4),
the Committee announces that he may postpone roll call votes.
Today, we meet to consider S. 141, the Space Weather
Research and Forecasting Act; and H.R. 6468, the Improving
Science in Chemical Assessments Act. And I'll recognize myself
for an opening statement.
Today, we meet to consider two bills primarily referred to
the Science Committee. One is S. 141, the Space Weather
Research and Forecasting Act. The Committee will consider an
amendment in the nature of a substitute by Representative
Perlmutter as base text. The Perlmutter-Brooks substitute
requires the establishment of roles and responsibilities for
Federal agencies within the Nation's space weather enterprise.
It codifies a formal approach to assessing and addressing the
challenges posed by space weather in the areas of observation,
forecasting, and response.
Broadly speaking, space weather is the way the behavior of
the sun and the nature of the Earth's magnetic field and
atmosphere interact. Space weather can affect the modern
technology we rely upon daily.
The electric grid, oil pipelines, passengers on commercial
airlines, and satellites that provide telecommunications and
GPS services can all be impacted by space weather. Depending on
the severity of the event, these impacts can prove disastrous.
As with terrestrial weather, without thorough monitoring and
accurate modeling, we simply have no good way to predict space
weather events and, in turn, no ability to ensure that life and
property are protected if severe events occur.
While the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the U.S.
Air Force currently monitor space weather, issue forecasts, and
create other products to inform the public, space weather
science, as a discipline, is still in its early stages. Without
marked improvements in understanding the causes of space
weather led by NASA and the ability to more accurately forecast
and predict events, much of our modern technological
infrastructure is at risk.
The Perlmutter-Brooks substitute creates, for the first
time, a formal national framework to leverage the capabilities
and expertise of the government, commercial sector, academic
community, and international partners. By tasking the National
Space Council with overseeing this framework, this amendment
sets out a strategy that is consistent with the current
Administration's approach to the management of space issues and
raises the profile of space weather and the serious threat it
poses.
Additionally, this amendment codifies the reality of the
threat posed by space weather and requires the establishment
and maintenance of a baseline capability for space weather
observation and forecasting.
However, through the creation of a pilot program for the
purchase of space weather data and services from the commercial
sector, the substitute also ensures that innovative, cost-
effective strategies can be pursued. And our burgeoning
commercial space industry can help address the challenges posed
by space weather. The Perlmutter-Brooks amendment will help us
better prepare for, respond to, and recover from potential
space weather events.
The other is H.R. 6468, the Improving Science in Chemical
Assessments Act, introduced by Environment Subcommittee
Chairman Andy Biggs, and cosponsored by Committee Vice Chairman
Lucas, Environment Subcommittee Vice Chairman Norman, and
Representatives Rohrabacher, Posey, Weber, Babin, Higgins,
Lesko, Hultgren, Abraham, Webster, Marshall, and Dunn.
This legislation amends the Environmental Research,
Development, and Demonstration Act to require any chemical
hazard identification and dose response assessments previously
conducted by the Integrated Risk Information System, or IRIS
program, to be carried out by the relevant national program
offices within the EPA.
Since 2009, the Government Accountability Office and the
National Academy of Sciences have raised multiple reports
criticizing the IRIS program for a lack of transparency,
procedural flaws, and improper science. This Committee held a
hearing last September examining many of these problems and
learning more about their impact on industry. Committee staff
have held two briefings with the EPA to learn more about the
practices and procedures of the IRIS program.
Although much work has been done in recent years to address
shortcomings in the program, the results just aren't there. The
time is ripe for an overhaul to bring the chemical assessment
process at EPA back to its core mission of conducting complete
and transparent scientific research as the foundation for
regulatory decisions. This bill does just that by making agency
science more useful to EPA program offices while increasing
transparency and efficiency in the conduct of chemical
assessments.
H.R. 6468 requires the EPA to follow strict scientific
standards in conducting hazard identification and dose response
assessments. The bill requires the EPA to ensure the underlying
scientific data is complete, relevant, and reproducible. It
also explicitly requires the EPA to integrate all lines of
scientific evidence, a suggestion made by the National
Academies of Sciences in 2014.
The EPA Office of Research and Development must certify
that each chemical assessment completed by the relevant program
offices meets the scientific standards in the legislation.
Together, these improvements will increase the public's
confidence in the EPA's chemical toxicity assessments by
ensuring they are conducted using the best available science
and are based on the weight of the evidence.
Taken together, the two bills we consider today prioritize
key programs and vital reforms within the Science Committee's
jurisdiction, though I should mention that the second bill also
has joint jurisdiction with the Energy Committee, as John
Shimkus just reminded me on the House floor a few minutes ago.
Prepared Statement of Chairman Smith
Today we meet to consider two bills primarily referred to
the Science Committee.
One is S. 141, the Space Weather Research and Forecasting
Act. The committee will consider an amendment in the nature of
a substitute by Rep. Perlmutter as base text.
The Perlmutter-Brooks substitute requires the establishment
of roles and responsibilities for federal agencies within the
nation's space weather enterprise. It codifies a formal
approach to assessing and addressing the challenges posed by
space weather in the areas of observation, forecasting, and
response.
Broadly speaking, space weather is the way the behavior of
the sun and the nature of the Earth's magnetic field and
atmosphere interact. Space weather can affect the modern
technology we rely upon daily.
The electric grid, oil pipelines, passengers on commercial
airlines, and satellites that provide telecommunications and
GPS services can all be impacted by space weather. Depending on
the severity of the event, these impacts can prove disastrous.
As with terrestrial weather, without thorough monitoring and
accurate modeling, we simply have no good way to predict space
weather events and, in turn, no ability to ensure that life and
property are protected if severe events occur.
While the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA), and the U.S. Air Force currently monitor space weather,
issue forecasts, and create other products to inform the
public, space weather science, as a discipline, is in its early
stages.
Without marked improvements in understanding the causes of
space weather, led by NASA, and the ability to more accurately
forecast and predict events, much of our modern technological
infrastructure is at risk.
The Perlmutter-Brooks substitute creates, for the first
time, a formal national framework to leverage the capabilities
and expertise of the government, commercial sector, academic
community, and international partners.
By tasking the National Space Council with overseeing this
framework, this amendment sets out a strategy that is
consistent with the current Administration's approach to the
management of space issues, and raises the profile of space
weather and the serious threat it poses.
Additionally, this amendment codifies the reality of the
threat posed by space weather and requires the establishment
and maintenance of a baseline capability for space weather
observation and forecasting.
However, through the creation of a pilot program for the
purchase of space weather data and services from the commercial
sector, the substitute also ensures that innovative, cost-
effective strategies can be pursued. And our burgeoning
commercial space industry can help address the challenges posed
by space weather.
The Perlmutter-Brooks amendment will help us better prepare
for, respond to, and recover from potential space weather
events.
The other is H.R. 6468, the Improving Science in Chemical
Assessments Act, introduced by Environment Subcommittee
Chairman Andy Biggs, and co-sponsored by Committee Vice
Chairman Lucas, Environment Subcommittee Vice Chairman Norman,
and Representatives Rohrabacher, Posey, Weber, Babin, Higgins,
Lesko, Hultgren, Abraham, Webster, Marshall, and Dunn.
This legislation amends the Environmental Research,
Development, and Demonstration Act to require any chemical
hazard identification and dose response assessments previously
conducted by the Integrated Risk Information System, or
``IRIS'' program, to be carried out by the relevant national
program offices within the EPA.
Since 2009, the Government Accountability Office and the
National Academy of Sciences have issued multiple reports
criticizing the IRIS program for a lack of transparency,
procedural flaws, and improper science.
This committee held a hearing last September examining many
of these problems and learning more about their impact on
industry. Committee staff have held two briefings with the EPA
to learn more about the practices and procedures of the IRIS
program.
Although much work has been done in recent years to address
shortcomings in the program, the results just aren't there. The
time is ripe for an overhaul to bring the chemical assessment
process at EPA back to its core mission of conducting complete
and transparent scientific research as the foundation for
regulatory decisions. This bill does just that by making agency
science more useful to EPA program offices while increasing
transparency and efficiency in the conduct of chemical
assessments.
H.R. 6468 requires the EPA to follow strict scientific
standards in conducting hazard identification and dose response
assessments. The bill requires the EPA to ensure the underlying
scientific data is complete, relevant, and reproducible. It
also explicitly requires the EPA to integrate all lines of
scientific evidence, a suggestion made by the National
Academies of Sciences in 2014.
The EPA Office of Research and Development must certify
that each chemical assessment completed by the relevant program
offices meets the scientific standards in the legislation.
Together, these improvements will increase the public's
confidence in the EPA's chemical toxicity assessments by
ensuring they are conducted using the best available science
and are based on the weight of the evidence.
Taken together, the two bills we consider today prioritize
key programs and vital reforms within the Science Committee's
jurisdiction.
Chairman Smith. I will now recognize the gentlewoman from
Texas, the Ranking Member, for her opening statement.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good
afternoon to everyone.
Today, we are marking up two bills, the Space Weather
Research and Forecasting Act and the Improving Science in
Chemical Assessments Act. Before I speak on the specifics of
the bills, I again want to take a moment to comment on the
Committee's dramatic turn-away from regular order.
This markup was noticed on Friday afternoon when we left on
Thursday, well after most Members were out of town. Moreover,
since the markup is on a Tuesday, the amendment deadline was 2
p.m. on Monday, which is before most Members are back in
Washington. This hardly seems conducive to a Member
participation in a markup.
Then, on Saturday afternoon, another bill was added to the
markup. This may be the least amount of notice I've ever
received on a bill being marked up in the Science Committee. In
fact, until last Congress, this would have broken the
longstanding Committee notice requirements. However, Chairman
Smith changed the rules to allow weekend days to count toward
the notice requirements.
On top of these issues, our Committee rarely holds
legislative hearings, and we haven't held a Subcommittee markup
in years. Bills are concocted in secret and thrown at the
Committee Members with no real chance for meaningful review.
The result is that Members are disenfranchised, and the work of
this Committee suffers. We can do better than this.
The first bill up in the--is the Space Weather Research and
Forecasting Act. I will speak more about this in a minute when
we consider it. However, I want to note how ridiculous it is to
jam the Members of this Committee by noticing this bill over
the weekend.
The bill we are marking up, S. 141, was introduced in
January 2017. It was referred to our Committee in May 2017,
which is well over a year ago. Mr. Perlmutter's companion bill
was introduced in June 2017. We could have considered these
bills at any point in the past year instead of jamming the
Members of this Committee with the late markup notice.
This bill has been referred to four additional House
Committees, so I suspect it is going nowhere in a hurry. In
fact, it seems like this entire markup is a complete waste of
our Members' time.
The next bill we're marking up is a good example of the
silliness that ensues when the Committee engages in these half-
baked markups. We were supposed to mark this bill up last week.
However, the majority had to pull the bill when it wasn't even
referred to our Committee, so here we are again.
The bill appears to have been hastily drafted in secret
without getting any feedback from the affected agencies or the
affected community. On top of being sloppily drafted and poorly
vetted, this bill is just plain bad. The bill would remove
chemical assessments from EPA's IRIS program and shift them to
the separate program offices within the agency. Essentially, it
is shutting down IRIS without explicitly saying so. The end
results, perhaps surprisingly, is that the chemical assessments
will be delayed and of worse quality than under the IRIS
program. Ultimately, though, my greatest concern is the harm
that will come to the Americans if this chemical assessments
are undermined.
That is why the bill is opposed by the Union of Concerned
Scientists, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the
Environmental Defense Fund. They've written letters to the
Committee expressing their opposition, and I ask that they may
be made part of the record.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
This really is a bad bill that will ultimately result in
bad science and sick people. I urge all of my colleagues to
oppose it.
I thank you and yield back.
Prepared Statement of Ms. Johnson
Thank you, Chairman Smith, and good afternoon to everyone.
Today we are marking up two bills: The Space Weather Research
and Forecasting Act and the Improving Science in Chemical
Assessments Act.
Before I speak on the specifics of the bills, I again want
to take a moment to comment on the Committee's dramatic turn
away from regular order. This markup was noticed on Friday
afternoon, well after most Members had left town. Moreover,
since the markup is on a Tuesday, the amendment deadline was at
2pm Monday- which is before most Members are back in
Washington. This hardly seems conducive to Member participation
in the markup.
Then on Saturday afternoon, another bill was added to the
markup. This may be the least amount of notice I have ever
received of a bill being marked up in the Science Committee. In
fact, until last Congress, this would have broken the
longstanding Committee notice requirements. However, Chairman
Smith changed the rules to allow weekend days to count toward
the notice requirements.
On top of these issues, our Committee rarely holds
legislative hearings, and we haven't held a subcommittee markup
in years. Bills are concocted in secret and thrown at Committee
Members with no real chance for meaningful review. The result
is that Members are disenfranchised and the work of this
Committee suffers. We can do better than this.
The first bill up is the Space Weather Research and
Forecasting Act. I will speak more about this in a minute when
we consider it. However, I want to note how ridiculous it is to
jam the Members of this Committee by noticing this bill over
the weekend.
The bill we are marking up, S. 141, was introduced in
January of 2017. It was referred to our Committee in May of
2017, which is well over a year ago. Mr. Perlmutter's companion
bill was introduced in June of 2017. We could have considered
these bills at any point in the past year instead of jamming
the Members of this Committee with a late markup notice.
This bill has been referred to four additional House
committees, so I suspect it is going nowhere in a hurry. In
fact, it seems like this entire markup is a complete waste of
our Members time. The next bill we are marking up is a good
example of the silliness that ensues when the Committee engages
in these half-baked markups. We were supposed to mark this bill
up last week. However, the Majority had to pull the bill when
it wasn't even referred to our Committee. So here we are to try
again.
The bill appears to have been hastily drafted in secret,
without getting any feedback from the affected agency or
affected community. On top of being sloppily drafted and poorly
vetted, this bill is just plain bad.
The bill would remove chemical assessments from the EPA's
IRIS program and shift them to the separate program offices
within the agency. Essentially, it shuts down IRIS without
explicitly saying so. The end result, perhaps unsurprisingly,
is that chemical assessments will be delayed and of worse
quality than under the IRIS program.
Ultimately though, my greatest concern is the harm that
will come to Americans if these chemical assessments are
undermined. That is why the bill is opposed by the Union of
Concerned Scientists, the Natural Resources Defense Council,
and the Environmental Defense Fund. They have written letters
to the committee expressing their opposition, and I ask that
they be made a part of the record.
This is a bad bill that will ultimately result in bad
science and sick people. I urge all of my colleagues to oppose
it.
I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
I'll recognize myself for a minute.
I just want to give Members a complete picture about why we
had a weekend notice of particularly the weather bill. Other
Members can respond to the merits or demerits of the bills and
the substance of the bills.
But the bill that we talked about over the weekend and I
talked to Mr. Perlmutter about it at least once or twice and we
exchanged other messages, I talked to Senator Peters about the
space weather bill over the weekend, and we exchanged several
messages. And this was all in an effort to try to keep,
frankly, a commitment I made to Mr. Perlmutter and the Senator
to mark up this bill before we broke for our August recess. So
we bent over backward over the weekend to make sure that we
were ready for markup, and I'm a little surprised to hear the
Ranking Member complain about a Democratic bill over which we
put in a lot of--into which we put in a lot of effort so that
we would be prepared to mark it up today. So I just want,
again, Members to have a full picture of the space weather bill
and why that weekend notice was necessary.
S. 141
Chairman Smith. Pursuant to notice, I now call up S. 141,
the Space Weather Research and Forecasting Act. And the clerk
will report the bill.
The Clerk. S. 141, an act to improve understanding and
forecasting of space weather events and for other purposes.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the bill is considered
as read and open for amendment at any point. And we will now
proceed with consideration of amendments in the order listed in
the roster.
And I now recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr.
Perlmutter, to offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute. And does the gentleman have an amendment at the
desk?
Mr. Perlmutter. I have an amendment in the nature of a
substitute to Senate Bill 141 at the desk.
Chairman Smith. And the clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to S.
141 offered by Mr. Perlmutter of Colorado, amendment number
ANS-01.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read and will serve as base text for purposes of
amendment.
The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Perlmutter, is recognized
for 5 minutes on his amendment.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am very
pleased we're here today to finally mark up legislation on
space weather. And the Ranking Member is correct. This has--
this subject has been hanging around now for at least a year.
Space weather is electromagnetic activity from the sun.
It's radiation, it's flares, it's eruptions, and it can have
significant societal, economic, national security, and health
implications both here on Earth, as well as in space.
Almost 3 years ago, Dr. Dan Baker from the University of
Colorado Boulder testified in front of this Committee about the
dangers of space weather events on our electrical grid. At that
hearing, he said, ``Had an observed July 2012 space weather
event actually hit the Earth, we would still be picking up the
pieces.'' That testimony stuck with me, and when Senators Gary
Peters and Cory Gardner introduced a Space Weather Research and
Forecasting Act a few months later, I was eager to start
working on a House companion bill.
Last year, Senate Bill 141 passed the Senate by unanimous
consent, and I introduced the House companion with a few
additions to that text with then-Representative Jim Bridenstine
as my Republican cosponsor. Since last summer, I've been
reminding and bugging the Chairman of my interest in the topic
and calling for a hearing, and, good to his word, we had that
hearing in April. And I thought all of the Members who
participated in that hearing were engaged and interested in
taking action.
After that hearing in April, I worked with Chairman Smith
and my new lead Republican cosponsor, Representative Mo Brooks,
to agree on legislative text the Chairman could support and
which moves the ball forward on this subject. That is the text
reflected in my amendment today.
This legislation will better coordinate Federal research
investments with forecasters who provide warnings to affected
industries and to ensure the academic community and commercial
sector work hand-in-hand to improve space weather forecasting.
This text takes a different approach about how to meet these
goals than the Senate-passed bill, but with this shared goal in
mind, it is another step toward getting space weather
legislation signed into law this year.
This amendment builds upon the work done in 2015 under the
Obama Administration and tasks the National Space Council and a
newly created National Committee for Space Weather Observation
and Forecasting with developing our national space weather
priorities. It also requires the Office of Science and
Technology Policy to develop a national space weather research
roadmap to coordinate Federal research on space weather.
We found in the hearing--it showed that the commercial
sector, the academic sector, and the Federal sector were all
working kind of in silos and not collaborating in the way that
would best serve all of us as Americans.
Throughout the bill, Federal agencies will be required to
collaborate more with the academic community and the commercial
sector, one of the driving factors behind the legislation. The
bill also sets up formal mechanisms to help break down barriers
between the research community and operational forecasters by
encouraging sharing of information and requirements to improve
the pipeline of new observations, technologies, models, and
forecasts.
Today's markup is certainly not the end of the
conversation. There were multiple referrals, and one of the
desires--and I think as accomplished by the substitute--is to
eliminate some if not all of the referrals.
Over the coming months, we will all have to work together,
Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Johnson, Representative Brooks,
along with the Senators Peters, Gardner, Thune, and Nelson from
the Senate Commerce Committee. I'm confident we can take the
two versions of this legislation and agree on a final text,
which will pass the House and the Senate to be signed into law
later this year.
I look forward to this continued dialog and the input we'll
receive from the space weather community in the coming months.
I want to thank Representative Brooks for his help and for
Chairman Smith for working with me.
I'd also like to thank the Ranking Member for her support
of H.R. 3086 and strong collaborative legislation on space
weather.
With that, I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Perlmutter.
The gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Brooks, is recognized for
his comments on the amendment.
Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing this
legislation, the Perlmutter-Brooks amendment in the nature of a
substitute up for Committee consideration today.
Space weather is an important issue because the
consequences of a severe space weather event can be far-
reaching and disastrous. The Perlmutter-Brooks amendment helps
to establish a formal space weather observation and forecasting
architecture that, hopefully, will help mitigate the harmful
consequences of space weather to life and property on Earth and
in space.
Space weather is a collection of physical processes,
beginning at the sun with solar winds and ultimately affecting
human activities on Earth and in space. Solar winds and their
interaction with Earth's atmosphere are not as understood as
they should be. Fortunately, numerous people and organizations
are changing this. Scientists and engineers at Marshall Space
Flight Center in my district have been at the forefront of this
vital research for many years. Under the Perlmutter-Brooks
amendment, their research will not only continue but improve so
as to help advance the Nation's space weather knowledge to
where it needs to be.
I thank my colleague, Mr. Perlmutter, for the leadership on
space weather and his partnership on this amendment. I urge my
colleagues to vote for it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Prepared Statement of Mr. Brooks
Mr. Chairman, thank you for bringing this legislation and
the Perlmutter-Brooks amendment in the nature of a substitute
up for Committee consideration today. Space weather is an
important issue because the consequences of a severe space
weather event can be far-reaching and disastrous. The
PerlmutterBrooks amendment helps to establish a formal space
weather observation and forecasting architecture that,
hopefully, will help mitigate the harmful consequences of space
weather to life and property on Earth and in space.
Space weather is a collection of physical processes,
beginning at the Sun with solar winds and ultimately affecting
human activities on Earth and in space. Solar winds and their
interaction with Earth's atmosphere are not as understood as
they should be. Fortunately, numerous people and organizations
are changing this. Scientists and engineers at Marshall Space
Flight Center, in my district, have been at the forefront of
this vital research for many years. Under the Perlmutter-Brooks
amendment, their research will not only continue, but improve
so as to help advance the nation's space weather knowledge to
where it needs to be.
I thank my colleague, Mr. Perlmutter, for his leadership on
space weather and his partnership on this amendment. I urge my
colleagues to vote for it.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Brooks.
And I'll recognize myself to speak on the amendment as
well.
And, first of all, I want to thank Mr. Perlmutter and Mr.
Brooks for their hard work on this issue and urge my colleagues
to support this bipartisan substitute to S. 141.
Their initiative for the safety and security of the
American people and economy is welcome. The Perlmutter-Brooks
amendment in the nature of a substitute will further the goals
of S. 141 and better address the complex challenges posed by
space weather and space weather events. By establishing a
national coordinating framework and providing ways for the
commercial sector, academic community, and international
partners to contribute in innovative, meaningful, and cost-
saving ways, the amendment not only advances space weather
observation and forecasting capabilities but also increases the
vigor of the national space enterprise on the whole.
Again, I especially appreciate Mr. Perlmutter's efforts to
move this legislation forward.
Does the gentleman from Colorado seek to be recognized
again? With----
Mr. Perlmutter. I----
Chairman Smith. With no objection, the gentleman is
recognized.
Mr. Perlmutter. I have--I think this is where I do it. I
have an amendment to the substitute amendment.
Chairman Smith. If you'll give me 10 seconds----
Mr. Perlmutter. Oh, sorry.
Chairman Smith [continuing]. We're on the way there.
The next amendment on the roster is a manager's amendment
offered by the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Perlmutter. And
does the--I know the gentleman seeks to be recognized, and he
is so recognized.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment
to the substitute amendment at the desk.
Chairman Smith. The clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to the Perlmutter amendment in the
nature of a substitute to S. 141 offered by Mr. Perlmutter of
Colorado, amendment number 002.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, and the gentleman is recognized to explain
that amendment.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And the Ranking Member was correct. Things were moving very
quickly this weekend with conversations between me and the
Chairman, Senators Gardner and Peters, about the changes that
we have proposed in the substitute amendment. And we've got a
couple other changes to the bill text that we worked on over
the weekend.
So, in addition, there are technical changes to the
amendment that will ensure that NOAA, NASA, and the NSF support
both basic applied and research to improve the space weather
forecasting. The amendment that I'm proposing now also
requirements the priorities and plans under the bill to be
reevaluated and updated at least every 4 years or more
frequently, as deemed necessary by the Administration.
The amendment also makes clear the importance of space
weather data and forecasting to successful deep-space
exploration, which was suggested by Representative Brooks and
is clearly a very important facet of the space weather
legislation we're proposing.
I encourage all my colleagues to support the amendment to
the substitute amendment, and I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Perlmutter.
And the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Brooks, is recognized.
Mr. Brooks. Mr. Chairman, I support the manager's amendment
to the Perlmutter-Brooks amendment in the nature of a
substitute. This amendment brings commonsense additions to the
Perlmutter-Brooks amendment. One in particular merits emphasis.
It's explicitly outlining the importance of space weather
observation and forecasting to deep-space exploration. This
manager's amendment makes it clear that not only can space
weather impact us on the terrestrial frontier, Earth, but it
can and will impact us in deep-space exploration as well.
I encourage my colleagues to vote for the manager's
amendment, as well as the underlying Perlmutter-Brooks
amendment in the nature of a substitute to Senate S. 141.
I yield back.
Chairman Smith. And thank you, Mr. Brooks.
And the Ranking Member, Ms. Johnson, is recognized.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I do not oppose this manager's amendment. However, it is
worth noting that we apparently need a 3-page manager's
amendment to perfect an amendment in the nature of a substitute
that was noticed 3 days ago. This just reinforces my opinion
that our Committee has rushed to a poorly--to a markup of a
poorly vetted piece of legislation.
I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
And the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is
recognized.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Today, we recognize the enormous impact that the sun has on
the Earth, and today, we're focusing of course on the powerful
danger that any type of hiccup on the sun could cause enormous
damage here.
Let us just note the sun also--well, many of us believe has
the--is the deciding factor as to what our climate will be like
on the Earth. And this impact should not be ignored when we are
debating the various issues that come before this Committee,
and I just thought I would point out how important the sun is.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
The last amendment on the roster is an amendment in the
nature of a substitute offered by the Ranking Member, Ms.
Johnson, and she is recognized for that purpose.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment
at the desk.
Chairman Smith. The clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered
by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Perlmutter of Colorado,
amendment number 035.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read and the Ranking Member is recognized to
explain her amendment.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My amendment is very straightforward. The text of this
amendment is drawn from the bipartisan Space Weather Research
and Forecasting Act, H.R. 3086. This bill was introduced by my
colleague from Colorado, Mr. Perlmutter, and I was the original
cosponsor. It was also cosponsored by current NASA
Administration, Mr. Jim Bridenstine, before he left the House.
The legislation was drafted in a bipartisan fashion with
minority Committee staff involvement, unlike the amendment in
the nature of a substitute being offered today by Mr.
Perlmutter that neither I nor the staff saw until negotiations
had already been completed.
This bill builds on the Senate-passed space weather
legislation that we're marking up today with some additional
improvements. These improvements include strengthening
international, commercial, and academic collaboration and
research to operations activities, incorporation of the
National Academies' decadal survey recommendations, and
providing for research in behavioral, economic, and social
sciences for the improved national preparedness for space
weather events.
In particular, this bill directs NOAA Administrator to
enter into an agreement with the National Academies to
establish a space weather government-industry-university
roundtable to bring the various stakeholders together to
facilitate communication and the transfer of knowledge,
language that was widely supported by the community.
Many groups are supportive of H.R. 3086, including
academia, scientific societies, and the commercial sector. I'd
like to contrast this amendment with the amendment in the
nature of a substitute noticed this past Saturday.
The text of my amendment has been vetted by the outside
community for well over a year versus 3 days for the ANS. In
fact, my staff found out that NOAA Legislative Affairs had not
even been given a copy of the ANS until we reached out to them
yesterday afternoon.
NOAA is one of the agencies most affected by this bill.
Our Committee held a hearing on space weather in April
where H.R. 3086 was endorsed by the expert witnesses. We've had
no hearings on the ANS because we've only just received it. My
amendment also more closely resembles Senator Peters' Senate
companion bill, which has already received unanimous support
from the other body.
All of this suggests that my amendment represents a better
and more rigorous thought-out policy choice than the ANS
noticed this past weekend. Given the Senate's prior support of
S. 141, I think adopting my amendment would also make it more
likely that we can actually get a good bill enacted into law,
which should be our goal as legislators.
I think we ought to be supporting the best policy in this
Committee, and I hope my colleagues will do that today and
support this amendment.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
I'll recognize myself in opposition to the amendment.
On April 26, the Subcommittees on Environment and Space
held a hearing titled ``Surveying the Space Weather Landscape''
in which Members learned about the potential negative impacts
of space weather events and the current State of research,
forecasting, and preparedness efforts related to space weather.
The Committee's position was always that more knowledge was
needed before acting legislatively, and consideration of
today's legislation, which comes just over 3 months after the
initial April hearing, is entirely consistent with that
position.
Shortly after the April 26 hearing, Mr. Perlmutter began
moving the ball forward on space weather legislation in a
constructive, bipartisan manner. Mr. Perlmutter and his staff
undertook proactive, good-faith negotiations and worked closely
with the Committee in crafting the consensus text of the
Perlmutter-Brooks amendment before us today. The Perlmutter-
Brooks amendment in the nature of a substitute is a culmination
of a rigorous bipartisan negotiation and represents a
substantive good-faith effort to address a serious issue.
The amendment offered by the Ranking Member would reject
those efforts, so I encourage my colleagues to vote against
this amendment.
Does anyone else seek to be recognized?
The gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
And I can't dispute the Ranking Member's complaint that
things really did accelerate over the course of the last few
weeks, but on the other hand, we have been negotiating. My
office has been negotiating with the Chairman and the Committee
staff. We've been working on this. It really accelerated--all
of this really accelerated over the weekend. Much of what's in
House Resolution 3086 is in the substitute amendment, and there
still is a long way to go to resolve this. And I appreciate the
critiques by the Ranking Member, and I like 3086 better than my
substitute amendment, but reality is that this is what we
agreed on, and this is what I agreed on with Representative
Brooks and with the Chairman and with the--Senator Peters so
that we could advance this legislation and have it go through
further conversation and negotiation as it goes through the
process. So I like my bill, but I'll probably have to vote
against it because I agreed on this substitute motion.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Perlmutter, for those
comments.
Does anyone else seek to be recognized?
If not, we have a series of amendments to vote on. And if
there are no further amendments, the question is on agreeing to
the manager's amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado,
Mr. Perlmutter.
All in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
The question is now on agreeing to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute offered by the Ranking Member, Ms.
Johnson.
Ms. Johnson. Record vote.
Chairman Smith. All in favor, say aye.
Ms. Johnson. Record vote, please.
Chairman Smith. I understand. The record vote has been
requested, and the clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Smith?
Chairman Smith. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes no.
Mr. Lucas?
Mr. Lucas. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Lucas votes no.
Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
Mr. Brooks?
Mr. Brooks. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Brooks votes no.
Mr. Hultgren?
Mr. Hultgren. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Hultgren votes no.
Mr. Posey?
Mr. Posey. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Posey votes no.
Mr. Massie?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Weber?
Mr. Weber. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Weber votes no.
Mr. Knight?
Mr. Knight. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Knight votes no.
Mr. Babin?
Mr. Babin. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Babin votes no.
Mrs. Comstock?
Mrs. Comstock. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Comstock votes no.
Mr. Loudermilk?
Mr. Loudermilk. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk votes no.
Mr. Abraham?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Palmer?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Webster?
Mr. Webster. Nay.
The Clerk. Mr. Webster votes no? Thank you.
Mr. Biggs?
Mr. Biggs. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes no.
Mr. Marshall?
Mr. Marshall. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Marshall votes no.
Mr. Dunn?
Mr. Dunn. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Dunn votes no.
Mr. Higgins?
Mr. Higgins. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Higgins votes no.
Mr. Norman?
Mr. Norman. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Norman votes no.
Mrs. Lesko?
Mrs. Lesko. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko votes no.
Mr. Cloud?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Johnson?
Ms. Johnson. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes yes.
Ms. Lofgren?
Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren votes yes.
Mr. Lipinski?
Mr. Lipinski. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Lipinski votes yes.
Ms. Bonamici?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Bera?
Mr. Bera. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Bera votes yes.
Ms. Esty?
Ms. Esty. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Esty votes yes.
Mr. Veasey?
Mr. Veasey. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Veasey votes yes.
Mr. Beyer?
Mr. Beyer. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Beyer votes yes.
Ms. Rosen?
Ms. Rosen. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Rosen votes yes.
Mr. Lamb?
Mr. Lamb. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Lamb votes yes.
Mr. McNerney?
Mr. McNerney. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. McNerney votes yes.
Mr. Perlmutter?
Mr. Perlmutter. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Perlmutter votes no.
Mr. Tonko?
Mr. Tonko. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Tonko votes yes.
Mr. Foster?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Takano?
Mr. Takano. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Takano votes yes.
Ms. Hanabusa?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Crist?
Mr. Crist. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Crist votes yes.
Chairman Smith. The clerk will report the vote.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, 13 Members voted aye, 19 Members
voted nay.
Chairman Smith. The nays have it and the amendment is not
agreed to.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The question is now on agreeing to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Colorado,
Mr. Perlmutter.
All in favor, say aye.
Those opposed, no.
The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to.
A reporting quorum being present, I move that the Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology report S. 141 to the House,
as amended, with the recommendation that the bill be approved.
The question is on favorably reporting S. 141 to the House,
as amended.
All in favor, say aye.
Those opposed, no.
The ayes have it, and S. 141, as amended, is ordered
reportedly favorably to the House.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon
the table. S. 141, as amended, is ordered reported to the House
with a favorable recommendation. I ask unanimous consent that
the staff be authorized to make any necessary technical and
conforming changes. Without objection, so ordered.
H.R. 6468
Chairman Smith. Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R.
6468, the Improving Science in Chemical Assessments Act. And
the clerk will report the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 6468, a bill to direct that certain
assessments with respect to toxicity of chemicals be carried
out by the program offices of the Environmental Protection
Agency and for other purposes.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the bill will be
considered as read and open for amendment at any point, and
I'll recognize myself to speak on the legislation.
Today, we are considering a bill that restores the
scientific integrity of chemical toxicity assessments being
conducted by the EPA. H.R. 6468 ensures that chemical hazard
identification and dose response assessments will be
transparent, complete, and tailored to the regulatory needs of
EPA program offices.
I want to thank Chairman Biggs for his hard work on this
legislation and urge my colleagues to support this bill.
And the bill's sponsor, the gentleman from Arizona, Mr.
Biggs, is recognized to speak on the legislation.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
speak on behalf of my bill, the Improving Science in Chemical
Assessments Act. This legislation ensures that chemical
assessments conducted by the EPA will advance the Agency's core
mission of protecting human health and the environment.
Specifically, the bill will eliminate EPA's flawed
Integrated Risk Information System, or IRIS, and return the
responsibility of conducting hazard identification and dose
response assessments to the EPA's program offices, which are
best situated to perform the work.
Without any foundation in law or direction from Congress,
EPA administratively created the IRIS program in 1985 to
``foster consistency'' in chemical assessments conducted by
EPA. Unfortunately, IRIS has evolved into a program plagued by
inefficiencies and a lack of transparency, resulting in
questionable science that can have a significant impact on the
marketplace.
When IRIS assigns a toxicity value to a chemical, Federal,
State, and local regulatory authorities use it to make rules
and regulations that can impact commerce. While in practice the
program does not have any regulatory authority, the assessments
produced by the program can still have a negative impact on the
economy similar to the effect of regulation.
Over the past year, the Environment Subcommittee has
conducted a hearing, hosted briefings with the EPA, met with
stakeholders, and worked with our colleagues to learn more
about the IRIS program. It has become very apparent that the
program has lost its way. This bill will address the problems
of the program by ensuring that any future chemical assessments
performed are tailored to the regulatory need of the relevant
EPA program office.
Let me be clear: Chemical toxicity assessments will still
be performed by the Agency. They will just be performed by the
program offices rather than IRIS. These future assessments will
be stored in a publicly accessible chemical assessment data
base, which will also retain the existing IRIS assessments.
Most importantly, this legislation promotes reliability in
chemical hazard identification and dose response assessments by
ensuring they will be carried out using the best available
science and based on the weight of the scientific evidence.
The bill requires that the EPA meet stringent scientific
standards when assessing any given chemical by considering the
relevance of the data, the uncertainty in the scientific
information, the extent to which it has been peer-reviewed, and
whether the findings are reproducible.
Last, the bill creates a Chemical Hazard Identification and
Dose Response Steering Committee, chaired by the Office of
Research and Development, to prevent duplication of work
performed by the program offices. The Steering Committee will
also be authorized to consider third-party assessments as a
supplement to the work being performed by the program offices,
provided that the third-party assessments meet the scientific
standards which are outlined in the bill. The Chemical
Assessment Improvement Act is a commonsense effort to refocus
EPA science back to its core mission.
I thank Chairman Smith, Vice Chairman Lucas, Environment
Subcommittee Chairman Norman, Representatives Rohrabacher,
Posey, Weber, Babin, Higgins, Lesko, Hultgren, Abraham,
Webster, Marshall, and Dunn for cosponsoring this important
legislation. I encourage the rest of my colleagues to support
this bill.
Prepared Statement of Mr. Biggs
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to speak on
behalf of my bill, H.R. 6468, the Improving Science in Chemical
Assessments Act.
This legislation ensures that chemical assessments
conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will be
transparent, reliable, and useful for program offices to carry
out EPA's core mission of protecting human health and the
environment.
Specifically, the bill will eliminate EPA's flawed
Integrated Risk Information System, or IRIS, and return the
responsibility of conducting hazard identification and dose
response assessments to the agency's program offices, which are
best situated to perform the work.
Without any foundation in law or direction from Congress,
EPA administratively created the IRIS program in 1985 to
``foster consistency'' in chemical assessments conducted by
EPA. Unfortunately, IRIS has evolved into a program plagued by
inefficiencies and a lack of transparency, resulting in
questionable science that can have a significant impact on the
marketplace.
When IRIS assigns a toxicity value to a chemical, federal,
state, and local regulatory authorities use it to make rules
and regulations that can impact commerce. While in practice the
program does not have any regulatory authority, the assessments
produced by the program can still have a negative impact on the
economy similar to the effect of regulation.
Over the past year, the Environment Subcommittee has
conducted a hearing, hosted briefings with the EPA, met with
stakeholders, and worked with our colleagues to learn more
about the IRIS program. It has become very apparent that the
program has lost its way.
H.R. 6468 will address the problems of the program by
ensuring that any future chemical assessments performed are
tailored to the regulatory need of the relevant EPA program
office. Let me be clear: Chemical toxicity assessments will
still be performed by the agency. They will just be performed
by the program offices rather than IRIS. These future
assessments will be stored in a publicly accessible Chemical
Assessment Database, which will also retain the existing IRIS
assessments.
Most importantly, this legislation promotes reliability in
chemical hazard identification and dose response assessments by
ensuring they will be carried out using the best available
science and based on the weight of the scientific evidence.
H.R. 6468 requires that the EPA meet stringent scientific
standards when assessing any given chemical by considering the
relevance of the data, the uncertainty in the scientific
information, the extent to which it has been peer reviewed, and
whether the findings are reproducible.
Lastly, the bill creates a chemical hazard identification
and dose response steering committee, chaired by the Office of
Research and Development, to prevent duplication of work
performed by the program offices. The steering committee will
also be authorized to consider third-party assessments as a
supplement to the work being performed by the program offices
provided that the third-party assessments meet the scientific
standards outlined in the bill.
H.R. 6468 is common-sense legislation that will re-focus
EPA science back to its core mission. I want to thank Chairman
Smith, Vice Chairman Lucas, Environment Subcommittee Vice
Chairman Norman, and Representatives Rohrabacher, Posey, Weber,
Babin, Higgins, Lesko, Hultgren, Abraham, Webster, Marshall,
and Dunn for cosponsoring this important legislation. I
encourage the rest of my colleagues to support this bill, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Biggs. Mr. Chairman, I also ask unanimous consent to
enter into the record a letter from former Democratic
Congressman Cal Dooley, the CEO of the American Chemistry
Council, which represents more than 170 companies that do
business in the field of chemistry, which supports the
Improving Science in Chemical Assessments Act. This letter
acknowledges that IRIS has had a, quote, ``routine lack of
transparency in the program, as well as failures in efficiency
and direction that have mired the credibility of the program,''
close quote.
Furthermore, his letter asserts that the, quote,
``legislation will ensure that EPA's program offices conduct
chemical assessments in a timely manner consistent with the
best available science,'' close quote.
So, Mr. Chairman, I ask that the--that that letter be
incorporated into the record.
Chairman Smith. OK. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Biggs. And I encourage my colleagues to vote for this
bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Smith. OK. Thank you, Mr. Biggs.
The gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, is recognized.
Mr. Tonko. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
Chairman Smith. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. I strongly oppose the bill, which
would decimate the IRIS program. The IRIS program provides
human health assessments of chemicals found in our environment.
The IRIS program has reviewed hundreds of chemicals and
supports programs across the entire agency. This is an
important program that keeps us safe. We should not be gutting
it; we should be ensuring that it has the resources and staff
to thrive and continue to provide toxicity information. It does
not make sense to tear apart this program and ignore research
expertise.
By fragmenting the office, we would be creating a system
where critical assessments would occur in other offices that
lack the capacity and expertise to properly conduct these
assessments. Instead, we would be giving an even louder voice
to industry interests who would replace unbiased expertise.
This would hurt public health and is a dangerous endeavor.
On EPA's own website it States the IRIS program is located
within EPA's National Center for Environmental Assessment in
the Office of Research and Development. The placement of the
IRIS program in ORD is intentional. It ensures that IRIS can't
develop impartial toxicity information independent of its use
by EPA's programs and regional offices to set national
standards and cleanup hazardous sites.
I'm also concerned by the secret science language in the
bill. This type of language is thinly veiled campaign to limit
serious and highly credible scientific research that supports
critical regulatory action.
We also have seen a disturbing trend at EPA lately where
science is being sidelined. I am extremely concerned by reports
that the release of a study which detailed cancer risks from
formaldehyde is being delayed, with the results kept hidden
from the public. EPA's priority must be to protect public
health and the environment. Weakening the IRIS program will
likely delay other critical toxicity assessments, and some may
never see the light of day.
In addition to my objections to the substance, I also have
serious process concerns with this bill. Not only am I on this
Committee, I also serve as the Ranking Member of the Energy and
Commerce Subcommittee on the Environment. This bill meddles
with existing regulatory and program requirements contained in
the many public health statutes that EPA implements. These
statutes are under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
I understand that the majority has not had substantive
discussions with the staff of Energy and Commerce Committee
about this bill to avoid unintentional, overlapping, or adverse
consequences in law and regulation.
Moreover, I am concerned by the process behind the first
bill, H.R. 6399, the Chemical Assessments Improvement Act. That
bill was introduced last Tuesday and noticed for a markup last
Wednesday, but the House Parliamentarian determined that the
bill was entirely within the jurisdiction of the Energy and
Commerce Committee. The morning of the markup, the bill was
abruptly pulled.
Before this bill is considered, the following questions
should be answered: One, has Committee spoken with EPA, and
have formal comments from the Agency on this bill been
received? If so, will the majority please share them?
Two, what other groups have been talked to about this bill?
Can we see all the comments received from them on this bill.
Three, what is the cost estimate of this bill?
Four, what are the potential impacts of this bill on the
programs and laws of EPA?
I do not believe we should be marking up this legislation
at all. I will oppose this legislation and encourage my
colleagues to do the same.
And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Tonko.
Are there other Members who wish to be heard?
Down here, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Babin, is
recognized.
Mr. Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
it.
Thank you for bringing forward this critical piece of
legislation. I applaud the efforts of the Environmental
Subcommittee Chairman Mr. Biggs of Arizona in introducing the
Improving Science in Chemical Assessments Act to bring much-
needed improvements to the way that EPA conducts dose response
chemical assessments.
The mission of the EPA is protect human health and the
environment, and this legislation will further empower the
Agency to ensure that the assessments that it undertakes will
do just that. The Committee has heard for too long about the
issues facing the Integrated Risk Information System, or IRIS,
program. In fact, the Committee held a hearing in which many
concerns regarding scientific integrity and a lack of
transparency in the IRIS process were raised. Similar concerns
have also been raised by the National Academy of Sciences and
the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
Given the shortcomings of the current program, it is
necessary to make improvements to the way that chemicals are
chosen and assessed. This legislation will improve coordination
amongst the national program offices and regional offices by
establishing a much-needed Steering Committee. This Committee
will allow for chemicals to be appropriately selected for
assessment, avoiding duplication, and ensuring that they meet a
regulatory need.
Moreover, this legislation will ensure that EPA is using
the best available science and rely on a weight-of-the-
scientific evidence approach when performing these assessments.
Together with the commonsense scientific standards further
outlined in the bill, these principles will ensure greater
certainty to the marketplace and to the American people.
As a cosponsor of H.R. 6468, the Improving Science in
Chemical Assessments Act, I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation. I want to thank you, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Babin.
And the gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, is
recognized.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I move to
strike the last word.
Chairman Smith. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I oppose the Improving Science in Chemical Assessments Act
because it would effectively eliminate the Integrated Risk
Information System within the EPA's Office of Research and
Development. The bill proposes a fragmented and weak system of
conducting chemical assessments that would undermine the
Agency's mission to protect human health.
The EPA created the IRIS back in 1985 to independently
assess the toxicity of chemicals and to provide a consistent
data base of human health assessments of chemicals that are
found in our environment. It was specifically placed within
ORD, so those tasked with protecting the public's health are
able to make the best independent decisions they can by using
the best available science to determine the potential harmful
effects of chemical exposures.
The chemical assessment process requires advanced technical
knowledge and expertise. Unfortunately, this bill would
disperse the process across program offices within the EPA that
do not have the scientific capacity to conduct the rigorous
review required to provide a thorough chemical analysis. The
bill would also allow for individual program offices to assign
a range of toxicity values instead of a single toxicity value
for chemical substances. This could allow regulated entities to
essentially choose from a number of toxicity values that could
lead to very disparate risk assessment decisions nationwide,
and the consequences could be dangerous.
I'm also disappointed that, once again, this Committee
chooses to ignore processes associated with an agency program.
Both the National Academies and EPA's own Scientific Advisory
Board, which is comprised of members selected by former
Administrator Pruitt, have recently commended the IRIS program
for its work conducting vital chemical assessments. In fact,
the National Academies concluded that the EPA has been
responsive to its previous recommendations regarding the IRIS
program and has made substantial progress in their
implementation.
Also, this bill was not written in a bipartisan fashion and
is a shortsighted attempt by our majority to restrict science
and allow for industry influence. It is imperative that these
chemical assessments be conducted and the IRIS program should
be placed in an impartial office like the ORD that has the
scientific expertise required to provide critical toxicity
information. Disassembling a program that relies on a science-
based review process to conduct human health assessments and
replacing it with a weakened substitute to placate industry is
a disservice to the American public.
I oppose this dangerous bill. I align myself with Mr.
Tonko's concerns about the Committee jurisdiction as well, and
I urge my colleagues to vote no.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici.
And the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Dunn, is recognized for
his comments.
Mr. Dunn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for bringing
this important legislation markup, and thank you for your
leadership on this, Chairman Biggs, introducing the Improving
Science in Chemical Assessments Act.
This bill addresses many concerns raised by the National
Academy of Sciences and the Government Accountability Office
regarding the integrated risk program system that is the IRIS
program at EPA. Both the National Academy of Sciences and the
GAO have been highly critical of the IRIS program and the
process it uses to review chemicals. This bill improves the
EPA's process for conducting these assessments.
In order to make these important changes, the Improving
Science in Chemical Assessments Act will shift the
responsibility of performing dose response chemical assessments
to the national program offices at the EPA. These offices
require such assessments to fulfill statutory requirements.
Moreover, the bill will codify the scientific principles
that strengthen the quality of chemical assessments. Many of
the scientific standards put forward in this legislation come
directly from the EPA's own guidelines for undertaking
assessments. These are commonsense standards that position the
EPA to better protect human health and the environment.
As a cosponsor of H.R. 6468, the Improving Science in
Chemical Assessments Act, I urge my colleagues to support this
important bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Dunn.
And the gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney, is
recognized.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the Chairman for yielding--or I
move to strike the last word first.
Chairman Smith. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. McNerney. I want to thank the Chairman for giving me a
few minutes here.
I'm going to oppose this purely partisan bill, H.R. 6468.
Mr. Chairman, good legislation needs bipartisan input. We don't
see that here. Second, I question the Committee's jurisdiction,
again repeating what Mr. Tonko said. E&C, Energy and Commerce
should be responsible to markup this bill. And third, of the
many problems with this bill, I will focus on the
politicization and introduction of conflict-of-interest
influences in the chemical assessment process, as well as the
overall degradation in the quality of chemical assessments if
this bill were to become law.
H.R. 6468 sets up a Steering Committee that would be
chaired by a political appointee and have the remainder of its
membership appointed by the EPA Administrator, creating a
highly politicized body that would be responsible for
determining which assessments are carried out and by which
program office. Additionally, the Steering Committee would have
the ability to include third-party assessments and to choose
the author of these assessments, essentially rolling out the
welcome mat for further politicization of what should be
inherently science-based process.
Moving chemical assessments conducted by the IRS--IRIS
program out of the Office of Research and Development and into
individual program offices at the EPA would offer gaps in
scientific review process. Program offices use the toxicity
information generated by the IRIS program to set national
standards and cleanup hazardous sites. If only one program
office is responsible for conducting an assessment on a given
chemical, there's a danger that different routes of exposure
could be ignored.
For example, under this bill, if more than one program
office intends to conduct an assessment on a chemical, the
previously described Steering Committee would choose which
program office would lead the chemical assessment. If this bill
were to become law and a chemical assessment is needed to be
conducted on lead, which program office would conduct it? If
the Office of Air and Radiation took the lead, would it ignore
the hazards of lead in water? Or if the Office of Water took
charge, would it ignore the hazards of lead in the air?
Chemicals found in our environment don't always follow only
one route of exposure and can be found across various media
such as air, water, and soil. Relegating a chemical assessment
to one program office would introduce bias in the way the
assessments are conducted and lead to lower-quality
assessments.
This bill would ultimately endanger human health. Dividing
up chemical assessments among program offices is a recipe for
problems as different routes of exposure to chemical hazards
could be ignored or under-valuated and would allow for a bias
to creep into these critical assessments. This is not
acceptable for an agency charged with protecting human health.
The IRIS program provides vital toxicity information that is
relied upon by States, tribes, regions, and other Federal
agencies, and they should continue to be housed in an impartial
office of research and development that has the appropriate
scientific expertise and capacity.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back, and I urge my colleagues to
vote no on this bill.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. McNerney.
And the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Norman, is
recognized.
Mr. Norman. Thank you, Chairman Smith, for bringing this
important legislation to a markup. And I also want to thank
Environmental Subcommittee Chairman Andy Biggs for his
leadership in sponsoring this Improving Science in Chemical
Assessments Act, a bill that would increase transparency and
efficiency in EPA's chemical toxicity assessment program.
H.R. 6468 is designed to refocus EPA science on its core
mission of protecting humans and the--protecting human health
and the environment. One of the priorities of President Trump's
EPA has been to ensure that agency science is useful and
relevant. This bill will make chemical toxicity data relevant
for the regulatory needs of the EPA program offices and useful
for States and localities, which will continue to have access
to the data through the publicly available chemical assessments
data base.
For years, the Internal--Integrated Risk Information
System, or IRIS, program has been unresponsive to national
programs office needs. The assessments take years, sometimes a
decade to complete. Thus, by the time the assessments are
complete, they're useless for the program offices, which must
regulate within the statutory time limits.
This legislation guarantees that chemical assessments will
be conducted efficiency--efficiently and will be valuable to
national program offices to carry out their core functions.
H.R. 6468 also creates a Steering Committee to coordinate
functions and to prevent duplications of work among the program
offices. EPA regional offices will sit on the Steering
Committee and will thus continue to have a role in determining
which assessments are needed for regulatory purposes.
Furthermore, this Steering Committee will be allowed to
consider third-party assessments performed by academia, outside
scientific bodies, foreign agencies, and industry, provided
that these third-party assessments meet the stringent
scientific standards in the legislation. This will increase the
efficiency of the chemical assessment process by allowing
program offices to use these third-party assessments as
supplements and build off the work already done by others.
As a cosponsor of H.R. 6468, the Improving Science in
Chemical Assessments Act, I urge my colleagues to support this
bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Norman.
If there are no other amendments, a reporting quorum being
present, I move that the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology report H.R. 6468 to the House with the
recommendation that the bill be approved.
The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 6468 to the
House.
Ms. Johnson. Recorded.
Chairman Smith. A recorded vote has been requested, and the
clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Smith?
Chairman Smith. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes no.
Chairman Smith. I mean, thank you for looking up again. I
was looking at Eddie Bernice Johnson. That's why I said no. I
vote yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes yes.
Mr. Lucas?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. I vote no but I'm going to change it to
yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes yes.
Mr. Brooks?
Mr. Brooks. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Brooks votes yes.
Mr. Hultgren?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Posey?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Massie?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Weber?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Knight?
Mr. Knight. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Knight votes yes.
Mr. Babin?
Mr. Babin. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Babin votes yes.
Mrs. Comstock?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Abraham?
Mr. Abraham. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Abraham votes yes.
Mr. Palmer?
Mr. Palmer. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Palmer votes yes.
Mr. Webster?
Mr. Webster. Yea.
The Clerk. Mr. Webster votes yes.
Mr. Biggs?
Mr. Biggs. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes yes.
Mr. Marshall?
Mr. Marshall. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Marshall votes yes.
Mr. Dunn?
Mr. Dunn. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Dunn votes yes.
Mr. Higgins?
Mr. Higgins. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Higgins votes yes.
Mr. Norman?
Mr. Norman. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Norman votes yes.
Mrs. Lesko?
Mrs. Lesko. Yes.
The Clerk. Mrs. Lesko votes yes.
Mr. Cloud?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Johnson?
Ms. Johnson. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes no.
Ms. Lofgren?
Ms. Lofgren. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren votes no.
Mr. Lipinski?
Mr. Lipinski. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Lipinski votes no.
Ms. Bonamici?
Ms. Bonamici. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Bonamici votes no.
Mr. Bera?
Mr. Bera. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Bera votes no.
Ms. Esty?
Ms. Esty. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Esty votes no.
Mr. Veasey?
Mr. Veasey. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Veasey votes no.
Mr. Beyer?
Mr. Beyer. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Beyer votes no.
Ms. Rosen?
Ms. Rosen. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Rosen votes no.
Mr. Lamb?
Mr. Lamb. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Lamb votes no.
Mr. McNerney?
Mr. McNerney. No.
The Clerk. Mr. McNerney votes no.
Mr. Perlmutter?
Mr. Perlmutter. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Perlmutter votes no.
Mr. Tonko?
Mr. Tonko. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Tonko votes no.
Mr. Foster?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Takano?
Mr. Takano. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Takano votes no.
Ms. Hanabusa?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Crist?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Cloud?
Mr. Cloud. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Cloud votes yes.
Mrs. Comstock?
Mrs. Comstock. Yes.
The Clerk. Mrs. Comstock votes yes.
Mr. Massie?
Mr. Massie. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Massie votes yes.
Chairman Smith. The clerk will report the vote.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, 17 Members voted ayes, 13 Members
voted no.
OK. The ayes have it, and the bill is agreed to.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5710.544
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon
the table. H.R. 6468 is ordered reported to the House. I ask
unanimous consent that staff be authorized to make any
necessary technical and conforming changes. Without objection,
so ordered.
If there's no further discussion, that completes our
business. This concludes the Science Committee markup. Without
objection, the gentleman, Mr. Palmer, is recognized.
Mr. Palmer. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably delayed by two
hearings held simultaneously. I would like to be recorded on
the--without objection, I would ask unanimous consent to be
recorded as a no on the previous vote.
Chairman Smith. OK. Without objection, no on--yes on this
vote obviously but no on which vote, the----
Mr. Palmer. On the amendment.
Chairman Smith. On the amendment. Is that clear enough? We
had three votes.
Ms. Johnson. You got enough to pass.
Chairman Smith. We know what you meant. OK. Let me ask the
clerk, can we go through those amendments and make sure that
Mr. Palmer knows which amendments he's voting on? Is that
possible? Let's get--can you all help him out? We need----
Ms. Bonamici. Mr. Chairman, I was detained and was late for
the vote on Ms. Johnson's amendment and----
Chairman Smith. OK.
Ms. Bonamici [continuing]. Request unanimous consent to be
recorded as an aye on the amendment vote.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the gentlewoman will be
recorded as an aye on the Johnson amendment.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. And we're still going to get clarification
from Mr. Palmer here. OK. OK. We'll put Mr. Palmer's comments
in the record, but for purposes today, he was recorded as
voting yes on final passage right now----
Mr. Palmer. Yes.
Chairman Smith [continuing]. Is that correct? OK. Do we
need to announce a recount on those previous votes, considering
the Bonamici vote yes for the Johnson amendment and the Palmer
vote yes on final?
The Clerk. Sir, the final passage of S. 141 was by voice
vote.
Chairman Smith. OK.
The Clerk. If Mr. Palmer would care to register his vote on
Ms. Johnson's amendment to S. 141?
Chairman Smith. OK. And, Mr. Palmer, is that a no on the
Johnson amendment?
Mr. Palmer. It's a no on the Johnson amendment.
Chairman Smith. OK. Without objection.
The Clerk. Sir, the final vote on Ms. Johnson's amendment
to S. 141 is 20 Members--excuse me, 14 Members voting yes, 20
Members voting no.
Chairman Smith. OK. Great. If there's no further
discussion, this completes our business and this concludes the
Science Committee markup. Without objection, the Committee
stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:57 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
S. 141, Amendment Roster, H.R. 6468
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]
| MEMBERNAME | BIOGUIDEID | GPOID | CHAMBER | PARTY | ROLE | STATE | CONGRESS | AUTHORITYID |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Smith, Lamar | S000583 | 8177 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | TX | 115 | 1075 |
| Lipinski, Daniel | L000563 | 7923 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | IL | 115 | 1781 |
| Posey, Bill | P000599 | 7887 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | FL | 115 | 1915 |
| Brooks, Mo | B001274 | 7790 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | AL | 115 | 1987 |
| Hultgren, Randy | H001059 | 7934 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | IL | 115 | 2015 |
| Bonamici, Suzanne | B001278 | 8367 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | OR | 115 | 2092 |
| Massie, Thomas | M001184 | 8371 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | KY | 115 | 2094 |
| Bera, Ami | B001287 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | CA | 115 | 2102 | |
| Esty, Elizabeth H. | E000293 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | CT | 115 | 2114 | |
| Weber, Randy K., Sr. | W000814 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | TX | 115 | 2161 | |
| Veasey, Marc A. | V000131 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | TX | 115 | 2166 | |
| Knight, Stephen | K000387 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | CA | 115 | 2228 | |
| Babin, Brian | B001291 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | TX | 115 | 2270 | |
| Comstock, Barbara | C001105 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | VA | 115 | 2273 | |
| Rosen, Jacky | R000608 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | NV | 115 | 2339 | |
| Lamb, Conor | L000588 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | PA | 115 | 2367 | |
| Johnson, Eddie Bernice | J000126 | 8186 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | TX | 115 | 599 |
| Lofgren, Zoe | L000397 | 7821 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | CA | 115 | 701 |
| Lucas, Frank D. | L000491 | 8111 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | OK | 115 | 711 |
| Rohrabacher, Dana | R000409 | 7851 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | CA | 115 | 979 |
Disclaimer:
Please refer to the About page for more information.