tv U.S. House of Representatives Legislative Business CSPAN February 10, 2016 2:00pm-4:01pm EST
the rapid decline of arctic sea ice and rapidly retreating glaciers. the research n.s.f. funds there will have environmental and geopolitical benefits to us and we should be expanding not retracting on those commitments. i ask how is it that research is not in the national interest? this destructive bill will have a chilling effect on our research community, stifling ambitious research necessary to a 21st century future. sadly, once again, the republican majority insists on misinformation and belief over empirical evidence and science. i urge rejection of the bill. thank you. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: i would like to yield five minutes to the gentleman, the chair of the sigh yepts committee, the gentleman from san antonio, texas, chairman lamar shoot.
-- smith. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas virginia tech for five minutes. mr. smith: i thank my friend from texas for yielding me time and i appreciate the chairman of the rules committee for bringing this rule to the floor to allow for consideration of h.r. 3293, the scientific research in the national interest act. h.r. 3293 requires each national science foundation public announcement of a grant award to be accompanied by a nontechnical explanation of the project scientific merits and how it serves the national interest. this written justification affirms national science foundation's determination that a project is worthy of taxpayer support based on scientific merit and national interest. the bill sets forth that n.s.f. grant should meet at least one of seven criteria that demonstrate that a grant is, in fact, in the national interest. these national interest areas are in the original enabling legislation that established the national science foundation and its mission or are a part of the
national science foundation's mission today. these criteria are increased economic competitiveness in the united states. advancement of the health and welfare of the american public. development of an american stem work force that is globally competitive. increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology in the united states. increased partnerships between academia and industry in the united states. support for the national defense of the united states. or promotion of the progress of science in the united states. these seven national mission areas encompass the overriding needs of america to which the scientific enterprise can contribute and advance. under this umbrella, many scientific disciplines and research areas can receive and do receive support and flourish. the amendments that were not made in order by the rules committee would have opened up this n.s.f. national mission statement to include every pet project, earmark, or political point that members on the other
side could think of. in fact, the explicit line item directed subjects that members wanted to add to the list of what is in the national interest are already covered by one of the seven categories in the bill. we welcome a fair and open debate on the merits of the bill and several amendments were made in order that allow us to have that debate. these include amendments by the ranking member of the house science committee, miss johnson, as well as five other democratic amendments. this rule allows us to have that fair debate and i urge my colleagues to support it. before i yield back the balance of my time, every criticism i have heard in the last few minutes about this bill could be addressed if those who opposed the bill just took the time to read the bill. it's only three pages long. you can probably read it in three minutes. and they would see that their opposition has no foundation what over. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized.
mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, if i could inquire of the gentleman from texas how many more speakers he has. we have no more on our side. mr. sessions: in fact, i am through with my speakers. i would allow the gentleman to move forward and i will close. mr. fk govern: how much remaining time, mr. speaker? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has eight minutes remaining. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield my southwest balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question. and if we can defeat the previous question, will i offer an amendment to the rule to bring up a bill that would help prevent mass shootings by promoting research on the cause of gun violence making it easier to identify and treat those prone to committing these acts. i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without opposition. mr. mcgovern: again, i oppose oth h.r. 3442 and h.r. 39 -- 3293. again, on h.r. 3442, if we are
serious about deficit and debt reduction, we ought to be talking about substance, something real, not some sound bite where members of this house can point to the administration to say it's all their fault. the reality is, it really is all our fault when you come down to it because this is the place that we are -- where spending decisions are made, where tax policy is made. if my colleagues do not want to raise the debt ceiling, then don't accumulate all these bills. it is congress that does this. it is irresponsible when you accumulate all these bills and you have to raise the debt ceiling to all of a sudden say we don't want to do it. to then default on our debt. as i mentioned before, my 2013, ues here back in when republican extremism actually shut the government down, it cost our economy $24
billion and 120,000 jobs. $24 billion may not seem like a lot to my republican friends, but i assure you it all starts to add up. those 120,000 jobs lost, that's all lost revenue coming into the government, which would go to paying down our deficit and our debt. if you really want to deal with this issue, then let's talk about things like paying for these wars that no one seems to want to pay for. let's talk about not enacting tax breaks and tax cuts for wealthy individuals and not pay for it. let's talk about really ending some of these excessive subsidies. to big oil and other big corporate interests in this country. let's talk about passing comprehensive immigration reform which c.b.o. has said would save us hundreds of billions of dollars that we could put toward getting our fiscal house in order. those are real things. this is just talk for the sake of talk. i guess maybe it's a good press
release. quite frankly i think our time would be better spent doing something else. again on h.r. 3293, the so-called scientific research and the national interest act, i take great exception to those who question the integrity of the n.s.f. the national science foundation has integrity, in pie opinion, beyond question. the work that they do is extraordinary. the work that they do leads to all kinds of benefits, not only for the people in this country but for the environment, for people all over the world. and the people who work there, scientists who work there, i think are having their reputations questioned by the introduction of this legislation never mind even considering it here today. i think you're diminishing the incredible work that they do. i get it. for some reason my republican colleagues can't admit that we have a thing called climate change going on around the
world. so any time everybody brings up climate change, you go after whatever department or agency it is, you attack them, try to cut their funding, try to question their integrity. i hate to tell my republican friends, climate change veal. the overwhelming science says it's real. and if you don't appreciate that, maybe you ought to go back to school and take a science class, because when we talk about the lack of accountability and the lack of proper stewardship of what we are supposed to be doing here, that's one area where i think we have let the american people down. indeed the world community. we are sitting here debating whether it's even an issue, which the american people can't believe while things continue to get worse. i would say to my republican friends, admit t climate change is for real. you're on the wrong side of the public opinion when you try to claim it's a hoax.
you are on the wrong side of the scientific community and you are on the wrong side of history. one final thing because i couldn't help but take note that my colleague from texas kind of took a jab at massachusetts over the home heating oil. i would say to the gentleman a couple things. one is massachusetts is leading the nation in terms of investments in renewable and green energy. i'm really proud of what my state is doing. i would say one other thing to the gentleman from texas and that is his state, texas, generates 10 times more emissions from heating oil compared to massachusetts. i would urge him to get his state's emissions under control for the sake of our planet. with that i would yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time of the the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, i'd like to ask how much time i have. the speaker pro tempore: three minutes. mr. sessions: thank you very much. mr. speaker, first thing i'd like to say to the gentleman is texas is bigger than france and texas is bigger than massachusetts. in fact, we have economic output, we have lots of people
working. we have economic prowess in texas. and we do have more output of what might be carbon. we do. we also had $290 billion worth of economic activity that we sent overseas. texas helps the united states of america float its boat because we have jobs, we have lower taxes, we have great schools, we have people that enjoy living where they live. we have people that take responsibility across the board texas is a great place to live. texas does, as you have heard many times, move our country in the direction to more freedom, mr. speaker. what we are talking about is freedom. with that comes responsibility. mr. speaker, what we are here today exactly as i started to say in the very beginning our
speaker, the gentleman, paul ryan, has challenged, i think all of congress, but in particular this republican majority, to bring forth good ideas that address the issues, thoughts, and answers about the problems that the united states congress, perhaps is responsible for, perhaps that the united stat sees that we need to start talking about what our future's going to be. and speaker ryan, when he was the chairman of the budget committee, when he was chairman of the ways and means talked about growing our economy. i know our friends want to raise taxes. i know the president of the united states wants to, now that the energy costs are down, to stick emback up and stick the american people with a $10 rrel tax. i know that what they want is more and more and more spending they'll get their chance with the budget when icomes in $1 trillion higher year than what
we are spending right now. that's their vison. but what we are talking out today is ourision. speaker ryan'sision. the republican majority vision. what is that? that is that we would like to put in place an agreement that we'd like for it to be a bipartisan vote, already have bipartisan support, but a bipartisan vote where we would say, regardless of who is president, because right now i don't know, and we don't know who the secretary of treasury is going to be. i don't in a moment i really couldn't even guess -- i don't know. i couldn't even guess. before you tell me the answer, we are trying to say we as a body need to make sure that we are focusing on what this is oing to look like at the time. the gentleman from massachusetts
was very clear say -- mr. speaker, i'm tend of my time. i urge my colleagues to support this rule, underlying bill. i yield back the balance of my time. i move the pre-previous questi on the resolution. e speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time of the the estion is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye those posed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to class 8 of clause 9 of rule 10, the 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followeby a five-minute vote on adopting house resolution 609, if ordered, and suspend the rules on passing h.r. 4470. this is a a-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned
the nays are 180. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the resolution is adopted. the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 236. the nays are 178. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the motion of the gentleman from michigan, mr. upton, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4470, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4470, a bill to amend the state's drinking water
act with respect to the requirements related to lead and drinking water, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. smith: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and and their remarks include extraneous material on the bill h.r. 3293. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 609 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 32693. the chair appoints the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis, to preside over the ommittee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 3293 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to provide for greater accountability in federal funding for scientific research, to promote the progress of science in the united states that serves that
.ational interest the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. general debate shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on science, space and technology. the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, and the gentlewoman from texas, ms. eddie bernice johnson, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, but will the gentleman please suspend. he house will be in order. he committee will be in order. the gentleman may proceed. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. h.r. 3293, the scientific research and the mall interest ct, is a bipartisan --
scientific act is bipartisan and transparent to the future. the growth and national security depend on innovation. public and private investments in research and development fuel the economy, create jobs and lead to new technologies that benefit americans' dafle lives. unfortunately, in recent years, the federal government has awarded too many grants that few americans would consider to be in the national interest. for example, the national science foundation awarded $700,000 of taxpayer money to support a climate change-themed musical that quickly closed. and almost $1 million for a social media project that targeted americans' online political speech. a few other examples of questionable grants include icelandic study the
textile industry during the viking era. $233,000 to study ancient mayan architecture and their salt industry. 220,000 to study animal photos in "national geographic" magazine. when they spend money, they spend less on worthwhile scientific research. such areas include computer science, advanced materials, lasers, information technology, development of new medicines, nanotechnology, cybersecurity and dozens of others that hold the greatest promise of revolutionary scientific breakthroughs. these sectors can create millions of new jobs and transform society in positive ways. n.s.f. invests about $6 billion a year of taxpayer funds on research projects and related
activities. the 1950 enabling legislation that created the n.s.f. set forth the foundation's mission and cited the national interest as the foundation for public support and dissemination of basic scientific research. the science and the national interest act reaffirms and restores this crucial mission. this will add transparency, accountability and credibility to the n.s.f. and its grant process. h.r. 3293 requires n.s.f. grants to meet at least one of seven criteria that demonstrates it is in the national interest. these seven criteria are -- increased economic competitiveness in the united states, advancement of the health and welfare of the american public, development of an american stem work force that is globally competitive, increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology in the united states, increased partnerships between academia and industry in the united
states, support for the national defense of the united states, and promotion of the progress of science in the united states. both the national science foundation director and the national science board have endorsed the principle that n.s.f. should be more accountable in its grant funding decisions. to n.s.f. director, to his credit, the n.s.f. began to implement new internal policies this year that acknowledge the need for n.s.f. to communicate clearly and in nontechnical terms the research project it funds and how they are in the national interest. opponents of this bill must think they know better than the n.s.f. director. the director testified before the house science, space and technology committee that the policy in h.r. 3293 is, quote, compatible with the n.s.f. internal guidelines, end quote. this legislation makes that
commitment clear, explicit and permanent. today, the n.s.f. funds only one out of every five proposals submitted by our scientists and research institutions. how do we assure hardworking american families that their tax dollars are spent only on high-priority research when we spend $700,000 of their money on short libbed climate change-themed musical? it's not congress' money, it is the taxpayers'. how could elected representatives not agree that we owe it to american taxpayers and the scientific community to ensure that every grant funded is worthy and in the national interest? when a national debt that now exceeds $19 trillion and continues to climb by hundreds of billions of dollars each year, we cannot fund every worthy proposal. much less frivolous ones like a climate change musical. the legislation before us reaffirms in law that every n.s.f. grant must support research that is demonstrably
in the mall interest. scientists still make the decisions, they just don't get a blank check signed by the taxpayer. they need to be accountable to the american people by showing their proposals are in fact in the national interest. h.r. 3293 passed the house science committee in october by a voice vote. congress has a responsibility to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and are focused on national priorities. this bill is an essential step to restore and maintain taxpayer support for basic scientific research. i encourage my colleagues to support this bill, and i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from texas is recognized. ms. johnson: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise in strong opposition to scientific he
research in the national interest act. i oppose this bill because i believe that this bill will rt the nation's premiere basic research agency, lead to less reward -- high reward research and ultimately leave america less competitive. my republican colleagues have a simple argument for their legislation. should n.s.f. research be in the national interest? that is a very good question, but one that can be easily answered. my answer is that n.s.f. research is already in the national interest. it has been for more than 60 years. the federal investment and basic research over the past 60 years has been the primary driver of our nation's economic growth and innovation. and in ways, our investment in
basic research have paid back a wealth of dividends. and this fact is widely recognized across the academia and industry. the national academies rising above the gathering storm report made this point a decade ago. that panel, chaired by the former head of lockheed martin, understood that the investment in basic research was fundamentally in the national interest. when we passed the 2010 competes re-authorization as part of the democrats' innovation agenda, that bill was endorsed by hundreds of business and research organizations, including the u.s. chamber of commerce and the national association of manufacturers. they all understood that investment in basic research is in the national interest. so what is this bill really about? is it really about enhancing our nation's ability to
innovate? no. sadly, this bill continues the republican majority's pre-occupation with second guessing america's best and brightest research scientists. for the past three years, the science committee majority has been engaged in a relentless and pernicious campaign against search grants with silly sounding titles. republicans have used this time to carry out this riffling through the grant reviews, and after all this effort did they find any evidence of wrongdoing? no. the only thing they found was that they already knew each of the research grants that had review process with flying colors. the majority didn't like it and wished the results were different, but those are the facts. let me be clear. some of the greatest scientific
achievements of the past 60 years were the results of funny sounding research, including research that was ridiculed in congress as frivolous. there are scores of examples. one of my favorite one is the sex life of the worm. one of the silliest sounding titles for research there could possibly be. 1970's it fact in said it was silly on the senate floor. sounds a lot like it was doing today. it was costing the u.s. cattle industry a small fortune. as a direct result of this silly sounding research, the cattle industry saved approximately $20 billion in the u.s. and significantly reduced the cost of beef to the u.s. consumers. at its core, this bill is about
second guessing our nation's best and brightest scientists and the grant making decisions they make. perhaps this is not surprising when so many of my republican colleagues openly question the validity of whole fields of established real science. from the social sciences to climate science to evolutionary byology. far from adding anything -- biology. far from adding anything useful to the process, h.r. 3293 would add more bureaucracy and paperwork, but my biggest concern is they would push n.s.f. reviewers to fund less high-risk research which by its very nature entails a pursuit of scientific understanding without necessarily any particular or known benefits. . we know that high risk research tends to have the highest reward. something that we have seen throughout the history of
n.s.f. i am not alone in my concerns. the president's science advisor oted, and i quote, h.r. 3293 would create doubt at n.s.f. and in the research community about congress' real intent and call into question the adequacy of n.s.f.'s gold standard merit review process. applied as well as basic research. this could easily have a chilling effect on the amount of basic research that scientists propose and that n.s.f. chooses to fund, with detrimental consequences for this nation's leadership in science, technology and innovation alike. mr. chair, i choose to stand with the scientists. when it comes to science. for that reason, i strongly oppose this legislation. i thank you and reserve the balance of my time.
the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> before i yield to the gentleman from oklahoma, i yield myself 30 seconds. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i want to say to the gentlewoman from texas that her objections are simply too late. and they are too late because the director of the national science foundation has already incorporated the national interest standard into the current guidelines that are being used as ath the national science foundation -- used at the national science foundation. the bill makes them permanent i -- permanent. i do like her example of the screw room, that's a reason to vote for the bill, not to oppose the bill. one of the requirements in the bill is that the grabblets be explained in plain -- grants be explained in plain english. clearly there would be no problem explaining why the example she gave is connected to the national interest. let me give just a real quickly a few more examples of how the taxpayer money is currently being used. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. smith: ok, i'll come to that in main and yield two minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma who is the vice chairman of the science
committee. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for two minutes. mr. lucas: thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, chairman smith, for the time. i rise today in support of h.r. 3293. the scientific research in the national interest act. n.s.f. invests about $6 billion of public funds each year on research projects and related activities. it's the only federal agency directed to the support of fundamental science and education on all scientific and engineering disciplines. since its creation in 1950, the n.s.f. has served the mission that helps make the united states a world leader in science and innovation. in recent years, however, the n.s.f. has seemed to stray away from its created purpose. and has funded a number of grants that few americans would consider in the national interest. r. 3293 seeks to restore the n.s.f.'s critical mission, by requiring the n.s.f. to explain in writing and in nontechnical language how each research
grant awarded supports the national interest. and is worthy of federal funding. think about that for a moment. not just explaining it in scientific terms. that the fellow scientific community can understand. but also in terms that the taxpayers understand. and in a time of distrust and suspicious of the -- suspicion of the federal government and all institutions, that's a very important key point. being able to explain to the folks back home why it matters. the bill also sets forth the n.s.f. grants should meet one of seven criteria that demonstrate the grant is in the national interest. today the n.s.f. is able to fund, as was noted by the chairman, only one out of every five proposals. this is a critical bill to restore faith in the process. we need to pass this. thank you, chairman smith, for your efforts. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlelady from texas is recognized. ms. johnson: mr. chair, i yield three minutes to the gentleman
from california, mr. lieu. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. lieu: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm congressman lieu from california. i ridse to -- rise to oppose this bill. is an exceptional nation and one of the reasons we're the best country in the world is because we believe in science. we believe in innovation, our country hases always believed in fiss -- has always believed in physics, in chemistry, and we trust scientists. the national science foundation has helped this country grow in terms of innovation and discoveries. it is not broken. so why are we trying to meddle with what the scientists have done? the chairman mentioned some examples of grants that sounded sort of funny. i get that most of the republican legislators do not believe in climate change. but the overwhelming majority of scientists do. as does the u.s. military, as does exxonmobil today. one of the grants had to do with how do people learn about climate change.
that is vitally important. because climate change is going to affect our children and our grandchildren. and it is true that some of these grants sound funny. and that's because scientists do all sorts of things that may not be very obvious and because i'm not a scientist and most people are not scientists, i think that's perfectly fine that we don't have all sorts of redundant writings explaining what an experiment does. let me give you one example. it's on the n.s.f. website. one of the grants is the study of funny-looking colored clay in france. blue-green clay in another country. sounds like a really silly grant, doesn't it? well, it turns out that when they looked at it, there are properties ithis blue-green clay in france that kills bacteria, anti-bacterial properties, it can help deal with mrsa, it can help deal with superbugs. this could be a groundbreaking grant. groundbreaking discoveries. but under this bill, it might have problems being funded. ultimately what this really is
about and what i've learned now in congress is often we are very arrogant. we do not trust scientists. we don't trust the people in america. this is an arrogant bill that says, we know best, not the scientists that are doing peer reviews of what grants to fund, we know which experiment might do exactly what. turns out in science, lots of times scientists study one area, get a completely different amazing discovery in a totally unrelated area. we need to fund basic science. we need to let our hands off this. we need to trust scientists, trust the people in america. do not have this bill pass. we are not that arrogant. we should not know what scientists are doing and that we know better than they do because we do not. i ask for opposition to this bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady reserveses. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: i yield myself 30 seconds. i really wish the people who say they oppose this bill would read the bill. it's only three pages long.
they can probably read it in three minutes. let me read the last sentence of the bill itself. nothing in this section shall be construed as altering the foundations, intellectual merit or broader impact criteria for evaluating grant applications. we don't interfere with the merit review process whatsoever, despite what might have been told. when you come up with an example as the gentleman just gave, that is clearly in the national interest. all we're asking is that the explanation show why it is in the national interest. i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. loudermilk, who is the chairman of the oversight subcommittee of the science committee. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. loud loud thank you, mr. speaker -- mr. loudermilk: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd also like to thank the gentleman from texas for his leadership in this issue. last month the congressional budget office released an updated deficit projection for the fiscal year 2016. the c.b.o. now expects that our deficit will be $544 billion this year. which is an increase from the original projection of $414
billion. now more than ever congress needs to work diligently to reduce spending and balance the federal budget. however, it is equally important for us to make sure that every taxpayer dollar that is spent is used responsibly. that's why i'm an original co-sponsor of the scientific research in the national interest act, because it will help ensure that the n.s.f. is using its funding in the most beneficial way possible. this bill requires the n.s.f. to explain how each of its grants furthers america's best interest. this can be done through advancing stem education, national defense, economic competitiveness, public health or other key priorities. by requiring the n.s.f. to justify its research, this bill will help crack down on frivolous government programs and, yes, mr. speaker, there are frivolous government programs. for example, the n.s.f. is currently spending $374,000 of
taxpayer money on a study of the ups and downs of senior citizens' dating experiences. while i'm sure we all want americans to enjoy their romantic lives throughout their years we cannot afford this type of wasteful taxpayer spending when we have a $19 trillion debt. this commonsense legislation will shirne that the n.s.f. research is well directed and will help prevent taxpayer dollars from being wasted. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlelady from texas is recognized. ms. johnson: thank you. i yield four minutes to the gentleman from new york. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for four minutes. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentlewoman from texas for yielding. mr. speaker, i oppose this bill which represents an effort by politicians to overrule expert scientists in deciding which scientific grants n.s.f. should fund. in defense of their misguided effort, some of my colleagues
like to pick a grant and poke fun at it or trivialize it or simply state that in their opinion it is not worth funding. one of the grants that has been singled out is entitled participant support for the zero emissions category of the clean snowmobile challenge. snowmobiles are ideal modes of transportation in extreme polar locations. this grant funded the challenge in which students form teams to engineer a lower emissions snowmobile. engineering competitions are both an important proving ground for new technologies and an incredible opportunity for students to engage in real-world engineering challenges. my colleagues frequently talk up the importance of stem competition. the science committee has held entire full committee hearings on that very topic. and now some of these same colleagues would ridicule an engineering competition just because it might have a climate change benefit. i hope all of my colleagues
here today agree with me that encoveraging and certain -- encouraging and certainly providing our next generations of engineers and promoting them is definitely in the national interest. even when it results in less pollution. this grant singled out for ridicule by some in the majority is just another example of why we should be concerned about the intent of this legislation. i would also like to point out that i strongly believe that the current gold standard merit review process works and that we should not be politicizing science. the sheer number of amendments to this legislation demonstrates the flawed methodology of trying to define which research is in the national interest. i think all the members that offered amendments to this section would agree that important priorities have been left out. personally, i believe we have unacceptably overlooked clean drinking water and climate change. i offered an amendment with
congressman kildee, that one would expand the priority of advancement of health and welfare to include clean drinking water. unfortunately this amendment was not made in order. as we've seen in the news, that has occurred out in flint, michigan, we've taken our drinking water infrastructure for granted for decades. this neglect and lack of investment has caused serious public healthssues. we need to invest more. but we should not invest in a 20th or in some cases 19th century drinking water system. a 21st century economy requires a 21st century infrastructure. but that cannot happen unless it is coupled with the critical research that will help us improve the construction, the operation and the maintenance of our water systems. our nation's future public health and economic development are counting on it. clean drinking water is one of many important priorities not listed in this legislation.
however, beyond missing important priorities, i'm concerned that this legislation will limit critical research. the exciting part of research is that at the start we do not know what we will find, so we can't accurately predict ahead of time all of the implications the research will have on specific national priorities. instead, we should invest and encourage high risk, high reward research. with that, i urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i yield myself 30 seconds. mr. chairman, here are some more reasons why we need this bill. these are some more examples of how taxpayer dollars have been spent. $200,000 to tour europe for an overviewf the turkish fashion industry. $1.5 million to study pasture management in mongolia,
$735,000 for the american bar association to follow young lawyers' careers, $920,000 to study textile making in iceland during the viking era. $164,000 to study chinese immigration to italy in 1900's. and dozens and dozens of more examples. mr. chairman, i'll yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. weber, who is the chairman of the energy subcommittee of the science committee. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized forwo minutes. . the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognize for four minutes. mr. weber: i rise in support of chairman smith's bill. folks at a time when budget constraints and the deficit looms large and ominous, why in the world would anyone object to more transparencynd accountability? can anyone explain that to me? i didn't think so. here's how some of our hardworking taxpayer money is being spent.
i have a list of 41 studies and programs that if taxpayers knew they would rise up and revolt and i ask unanous consent for this list to be placed in the record. the chair: will be coveredby general leave. r. weber: $227,000 to review animal photos in "naonal geographic" magazine. what baboon thought that up? $350,000 to study human set fires in new zeala in the 1800e's. the only being set on fire here are taxpayers' doars. $200,000 to tour europe for an industry.f the vale a friend of mine says fashion is a form that is so bad and yet we want to study it in anothe
country. $147,000 to analyze fishing practices at lake victoria. you all come down to galveston, texas and show you h to fish and you can spend money in our country. $170,000 to study basket weaving peoples. kan-native should we major in basket weaving. these are the mo notable ones. could go on -- for example, $330,000 to study the careers of 2500 new lawyers in russia. not that we don't have enough lawyers here in america, we are now concerned about the ones in russia. i could go on and on. i urge my colleagues to support transparency and accountability on behalf of our constituents and taxpayers.
after all, they are paying the freight for this stuff. shouldn't we be open and accountable to them? i commend chairman smith for his bill for putting hardworking tax paying americans first and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from texas is recognized. ms. johnson: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. beyer. mr. beyer: i voice my strong opposition to h.r. -- the legislation, the so-called scientific research. i understand the bill. much to the dismay of the titles of the national funded research. this bill is the wrong approach n.s.f. ss the issues of grants and represents classic short-term thinking. i'm a businessman and no one
wants politicians or government to decide business winners and losers. none of us believe that politicians should be making science decisions either. bill foster is the only scienceist in the house. by proclaiming what sciencists in the national interests, we are deciding what is worthy of scientific research. no one has raised any objections to transparency or the accountability of the nional science foundation that completely mischaracterizes our objectives. they sound constructive and benign. increased economic activity, advancement of health and welfare, support for the national defense, et cetera. but only one of the seven definitions even mentions science. the last one says for the promotion of science for the progress of the united states.
whatever that means. where is the fundamental research that i know all of us value? listin to all the funny names. would einstein's 1905 papers on special relative activity even qualify under the. climate mechanics. how about work on parallel and the d.n.a. y colleagues' roommates sent stud studying. and today we call them m.r.i.'s. that's the whole point of research. we don't know if it is in the national interest but just adds to our knowledge. on the committee, we revel in the nasa presentation of the pluto photographs and that have
horizons that qualify under the seven definitions. i respect the chair wants the n.s.f. funds expended in a legitimate scientific research. mr. smith used the phrase in the national interest. but how can we know that all basic research is long-term rather than short-term? let's let the scientists decide and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield myself 30 seconds. to those who are on the other side, i encourage them to read the bill. there is nothing in the bill that says we are going to tell the scientists what to do or think and it is clear in the examples that the gentleman just gave that all of those are connected and if the conditions activities can't explain that, there are greater problems.
to repeat what i said a while ago ffment you oppose the national science standard. the director has incorporated the national interest standard in the current guidelines. if you want to make it permanent, that's your prerogative. don't oppose the one that is in the current guidelines. i yield five minutes to mr. lipinski. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for five minutes. mr. lipinski: mr. chairman, i want to start where we all have agreement. everyone would acknowledge they want research to be in the nation's interest. and it is furthered by promoting scientific progress. and one of the principal reasons that i have served on the science committee for 12 years. but we have some disagreement.
i have respectfully disagreed with the chairman over his criticisms of some n.s.f. grants and at a hearing in november of 2013, i spoke out strongly against a very different n.s.f. bill that i don't believe that -- i believe some people are confusing that bill with this bill that we have here today. if you read this bill's text, i don't believe you can find anything that could undermine the merit review process at the n.s.f. this will protect the n.s.f. from future attacks and make the foundation stronger. h.r. 3293 says research funded by the n.s.f. must be worthy of national funding and in the national interests. the national interests are defined by broad criteria that a grant has a potential to promote the progress of science to the united states.
it is difficult to conseff that research would not meet that standard. it is difficult for help to see how the standard could harm the work that the foundation does. the bill clearly states that it is the job of the foundation to determine what is worthy of funding, not politicians, and nothing in the bill would alter its peer review process which we agree is a gold standard for funding scientific research. as a scientist myself, i believe this is as it should be. nevertheless, there have been suggestions that this bill is politicians creating a political filter and what research suld be funded. but it is describinging how this broader than the impact and there is no concerns at the time about the language being a political filter, nor was there any concern that broader impact be applied to portfolio of
grants rather than individual awards. furthermore at the time the foundation had broader foundations as part of the peer review process but it put the criteria in statute. the ease whi it has implemented the criteria, suggests to me they could implement this language without changing the nature of the research they fund. there is some concern that this bill would cause the foundation to become more risk averse and not funding grants like the one that started google. let's take a look at that gant. n.s.f. funded the stanford digital library project in 1994 and the research in that grant including a graduate research fellowship program led to the basis of google. the purpose of that grant to develop technology r a single integrated and universal library
providing access to emerging network information sources and collection. even putting aside the emerging collections on the web that could be impacted, that grant clearly seemed to have the potential to promote the progress of computer science and be worthy of federalunding and would have been funded under provisions of this bill. the debate around this has focused around the lanage and more on the concerns on the intentions of the bill. i have disagreed with recent iticisms of the n.s.f. thgolden fleece awards have proven to b golden gooses i think much of the criticism of grants comes from misunderstanding. this bill could help prevent misunderstandings and give the n.s.f. the ability to defend its work. this will come from the requirement that they be rewritten to explaithe purpose of a grant. i applaud the n.s.f. for steps
they have taken to better explain why scientific research is vabble and promoting the science is in the nation's interest and worthy of federal funds. this policy in the bill will further help n.s.f. decide worth while grants all of us may never see eye to eye what types of research should be supported. i see more value in social science than many of my colleagues on the oth side of the aisle and i never miss the opportunity to point that out, but far from acting as a political filter, i believe this bill will help th n.s.f. continue to be the world's foundation funding scientific research and i ask my colleagues to join me in supporting th bill. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from texas is recognized.
ms. johnson: i eld myself such time as i may consume. i want to point out that this grant was mentioned ju earlier in remarks. in defense of some misguided efforts, some of my colleagues pick certain grants anmake fun f it and then it's not worth funding. onef the grants that my colleagues like toick on is a grant eitled esytem resilience to human impacts. ecological consequences of early human set fires in new zealand. it may be easy, but some of my colleaes my colleagues to question why the federal government should spend money on fires sent on a country hundreds of years ago. read the abstract. settlers in new zealand caused
the loss of more than 40% of the forests in in just decades. by studying the lng-term effts impacts of those long-ago fires, we can gain knowledge to help natural resource managers make smarter decisions about how to mitigate, prepare for d respond to massive wildfires in our own country. it is right in the public interest. just to put an economic figure to this, in 2012, the united states spent $2 billion to suppress over 65,000 wildland fires that burned over nine million acres. soun like this is a national interest to study the long-term impact of fires that were set so many years ago.
i choose to stand with the scientists. when itomes to science, for that reason, really oppose this misguid bill and i'm going to reserve th balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: mr. chairman, we have one more member on the way to the floor to speak and then i'm prepared to close. . the chair: he gentlewoman from texas is recognized. msjohnson: i have no more requests for time. and i will reserve the balance f my time. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized to close. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the
geleman from texas, mr. babin, who is on his way to the podium rht now. the chair: the gentlem from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. babin: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, m speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today in strong suppo of h.r. 3293 the scientific research in the national interest act. the national science undation spent $7 billion in taxpayer funds most of which goes to important research tt helps advance america's competitiv edge. however, the n.s.f. has funded far too many wasteful projects that areot in the national interest. several examples, $1.5 mlion to study pasture management in ongolia. $20,000 to studytress among
the people of bolivia. while the n.f. has begun to implement some new -- has begun to implement some neinternal policies that is are intended to increase transparency and -- that are intended to incrse transparency and countability, this bill will help strenhen the reforms and make them permanent. theirector of the n.s.f. even testified before the committee that th policy of h.r. is, quote, compatible with the n.s.f.'s internal guidelines, unquote. i highly commend chairman smith for his leadership on this important bill and i encourage my colleagues to very much support it. and with that i yield back, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back. e gentlelady from texas is recognized. ms. johnson: mr. chairman, once again i stand with the scientists and i also stand with the president's potential statement. if this bill is presented to the president, scientists have
recommended that he veto it. with that, i stand with the scientists again and ask the people to vote against this bill and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady from texas yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i yield myself the remainder of the time. i am glad that the gentlewoman brought up the administration's position on this bill. because it is absolutely no surprise. when president obama was elected, he promised that this would be the most transparent administration in history. it has turned out to be the exact opposite. so, opposing a bill to bring more transparency to government, more accountability to the national science foundation, is a perfect natural for this administration. let me give you some more examples. according to analysis of federal data by the associated press, the obama administration set new records two years in a row for denying the media access to government files. and more than that, an unprecedented letter to several congressional committees, 47 inspectors general, who are the
official watchdogs of federal agencies, complained that the justice department, e.p.a. and others consistently obstruct their work by blocking or delaying access to critical information. this is the record, this is the history of an administration who opposes this bill. again, a bill that is going bring transparency and accountability to the federal government. mr. chairman, it seems obvious to most of us and to most americans that taxpayer funded grants should be in the national interest. but let me address some of the false arguments that have been presented by members on the other side. opponents claim that the bill interferes with the merit review process for approving grants. this is false. the three-page bill clearly states, quote, nothing in this section shall be construed as altering the foundation's intellectual merit or broader impacts criteria for grant application, end quote. scientists still make the decisions. they just do not get a blank check written by the taxpayer.
they need to be accountable to the american people by showing that their proposals are in the national interest. what the bill does do is ensure that the results of the peer review process are transparent and that the broader societal impact of the research is better communicated to the public. this makes it clear how the grant is in the national interest. another common falsehood spread by opponents of the bill is that it means research projects will be judged by the title as to whether or not they're worthy of federal funding. again, this is false. the bill actually corrects a past problem with some n.s.f.-funded grants. often the title and incomprehensible summary were all that was publicly available about a research grant. the bill ensures that a project's benefits are clearly communicated to aren't public support and trust. researchers should embrace the opportunity to better explain to the american people the potential value of their work.
finally, opponents have claimed that the bill discourages high risk, high reward research. once again, this is false. research with the potential to be groundbreaking is almost always worthy of federal funding and in the national interest. basic research by its very nature is uncertain, regarding outcomes and results, but payoffs to society, quality of life and standards of living can be transformative. research that has the potential to address some of society's greatest challenges is what the n.s.f. should be funding. improving computing and cybersecurity, advancing new energy sources, discovering new , and es and cures creating advanced materials are just some of the ways that n.s.f.-funded research can help create millions of new jobs and transform society in a positive way. on the other hand, how does spending $700,000 on a climate change musical encourage breakthrough research? there may well be good answers to those questions, but we weren't able to come up with
them and neither was the national science foundation. when n.s.f. funds projects that don't meet such standardses, there is less money to support worthwhile research that keeps our country at the forefront of innovation. both the national science foundation director and the board have endorsed the principle that n.s.f. should be more accountable in its grant funding decisions. why would congress oppose such a commonsense requirement? why do opponents of this bill think they know better than the n.s.f. director who has approved the national interest standard and the current guidelines? it's just incon receiveable to me that an elect -- inconceivable to me that a an elected representative -- that an elected representative would decide this. whose money do they think the n.s.f. spending on these frivolous research grants? taxpayers should know how their hard-earned dollars are in fact being spent. i ask my colleagues to bolster transparency and
accountability, protect american taxpayers and promote good, fundamental science and basic research. mr. chairman, i want to thank the gentleman from illinois who spoke just a minute ago. he made a really, really good point that i want to repeat. and that is that this bill is actually going to help strengthen the national science foundation, because it is going to give it more credibility and taxpayers are going to have more assurance that their hard-earned money is being spent on worthwhile projects that are in fact in the national interest. mr. chairman, taxpayers spend $6 billion, $6 billion is being spent by the national science foundation, they only approve one out of five grant requests. shouldn't those grant proposals be in the national interest? shouldn't they be about breakthrough technology, technological inventions, shouldn't they increase productivity in america? and i think that is exactly how the taxpayers' dollars should be spent. mr. chairman, how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has 3 1/2 minutes remaining.
mr. smith: great. mr. chairman, what i'd like to do is give more examples of how the taxpayers' dollars actually should not be spent. these are grants that have been approved by the national science foundation in the past. again, i want to give the current director full credit. she's changed the standards and she has implemented the national interest as a part of their guidelines. but if we don't make these guidelines permanent, this is what could happen and this is how the taxpayers' dollars have been spefpblet -- spent. $250,000 to survey public attitudes about the senate filibuster rule. $276,000 to study the pre-history of mexico. $246,000 to study migration and adoption between peru and spain. $136,000 to study life history transitions among indigenous people of northern argentina. $27,000 to study mya -- mayan
wooden architecture in the salt ndustry. $300,000 to study cyprus during the bronze age. $226,000 to study cultural dynamics in western turkey. $119,000 to coordinate an international archeological project in the south american area. $600,000 to study a system in southwestern ethiopia. $300,000 to produce an experimental dance program about nature and physics. and speaking of that, i think $516,000 to ther help amateurs create a video game. $516,000 to help amateurs create a video game called relive prom night. there is no national interest that i'm aware of. if there is, they sure ought to point it out before we ask the taxpayers to spend a half a
million dollars on reliving prom night. let's see. $605,000 to study and travel around the world and study how people cheat on their taxes. $3,000 to consider whether livestock hearding -- herding families expand in response to herd growth. $193,000 to study human fish consumption in tanzania. $250,000 to educate local tv meetologists. $275,000 to -- immediateologists. $275,000 to study tourism in northern norway. $450,000 to create the climate change narrative game. $131,000 for a one-day program change education using giant screen tv's. $250 million to create die ramas for the oakland museum of
california. $590,000 to support private groups advocating drastic climate change. $760,000 -- excuse me. $289,000 to study how colonialism and climate change threaten the survival of arctic peoples in russia. $339,000 to -- i'm sorry. my time is about expired. i appreciate that. i could go on and give dozens and dozens of examples. but i think it is clear that this is not how the american taxpayer dollars should be spent. and i'll yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. and shall be considered as read. no amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in part b of house report 114-420. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report by a
member designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. the chair understands amendment number 1 will not be offered. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 114-420. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. johnson: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 114-420 offered by ms. johnson of texas. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from texas, ms. johnson, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas. ms. johnson: thank you, mr. chairman. my colleague from texas,
chairman of the science committee, has stated many times that h.r. 3293 is consistent with the policy announced by n.s.f. in january, fwivet. -- 2015. he also frequently cites a year-old comment from n.s.f. director about this bill. it's one thing to use such vague statements in defense of this bill. it's quite another thing to look directly at the n.s.f. policy issued by the doctor to see what it actually says. i pulled directly from n.s.f.'s january, 2015, policy. the nontechnical component of this n.s.f. award abstract must serve as a public justification for n.s.f. funding by articulating how the project serves the national interest. as stated by n.s.f.'s mission.
to promote the progress of science, to advance the national health, prosperity and welfare, and to secure national defense. dr. holder and the president's science advisor said, according to the clear wording and intent of the 1950 act that created the national science foundation, promoting the progress of science through basic research is in the ational interest. the doctor is describing what she means by national interests and points to the 1950 mission statement in her policy. there is no separate list defining national interests with riteria that is applying research -- nor basic research. why the words promoting the progress of science aappear in the bill, they do so as an
afterthought and added only after the many versions of this bill. now that we are all understanding the national science foundation's actual policy, i can briefly explain my amendment. by tying the terminal interests to the 1950 national statement, my amendment brings the bill truly in line with national science foundation's own policy of transparency and accountability. my amendment also provides clarity to what we mean by words worthy of federal funding. by stating that anything that has passed the rigors of the national science foundation's peer review process is worthy of federal funding. in short, my amendment fixes the underlying bill by removing restrictions that may stifle
high-risk basic research and taking decisions about grant funding out of the hands of politicians and putting it back in the hands of scientists where it be longs. the national science foundation's 1950 mission statement implemented through its gold standard peer review process has served science and this nation so well. let's leave it intact by passing my amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas reserves. mr. smith: i oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: it weakens accountability and transparency. it dill lutes the grant and saying it must be worthy of federal funding. it is difficult to understand why a research grant be worthy of taxpayer support.
worthy means having adequate, great merit or value and deserving. the opposite of worthy of federal funding are frivolous, low-priority projects like creating a voicemail game or studying tourism in norway. would one think that fundamental standards worthy of federal funding and in the national interest would already be embedded in the standards national science foundation uses to evaluate thousands of grant applications and decide which one should receive $6 billion in basic research grants each year. but from the science committee's review of past n.s.f. grants, we have learned this is not always the case. this amendment eliminates the requirement that each grant be worthy of federal funding. any grant approved by n.s.f. through its merit selection system will be considered worthy of federal funding. with this change, every
n.s.f.-funded project would be considered worthy of funding no matter how absurd. if congress abdicates its responsibility only on projects worthy of federal funding. the underlying bill does not interfere that the national science foundation merit selection process. it only requires that n.s.f. be transparent and explain in writing in a none technical term that each project that receives public fund is in the national interests. taxpayers deserve this information. it's their money. moreover in order to maintain public support for vital investments in basic research, n.s.f. must explain why every investment deserves to receive hard-earned tax dollars. the director and her team understand this.
that is why they are implementing new policies to make grant making more transparent and understandable for the american people. these policies acknowledge the primary importance of national interests in awarding tax dollars. during her testimony before the science committee last year, the director described this national interest act and n.s.f.'s policies as consistent and fully compatible with each other. i would like to remind everyone it is not congress' or the n.s.f.'s money but the american people's money. she is requiring to require public announcement of every rant award with a nongrant award. my concern is that the proposed amendment would create a loophole through which blocks of hundreds of grants in a particular area of science would be justified by just one general
statement. this is the opposite of accountability and transparency. i strongly oppose the amendment for these reasons and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlewoman from texas is recognized. ms. johnson: i rise to say that this does not do any more than what was intended under the law and leaves it? the hands of the peer review board and not the politicians. it does nothing and in fact, it improves it so it can lead congress in doing its work. every zpwrant that goes out of the national foundation is peer reviewed. the system that was set up 60 years ago. it has worked well. we gained great research and i don't think that making sure that the politicians that have
something to say about it makes it any better, but makes it worse. i would move to adopt my amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: mr. chairman, the national science foundation, director of the national science board both have expressed endorsed the principle that n.s.f. should be transparent and accountable. it has incorporated the national industry standard in their guidelines. this amendment creates loopholes and dilutes the intent of the bill, a bill that the director has testified, quote, is very compatible with the new internal n.s.f. guidelines and mission statement of the national science foundation. i ask my colleagues to say yes to accountability and transparency and no to the amendment. i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas.
those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the knows have it. ms. johnson: i request a recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in 420. b of house rule 114- for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 114-420 offered by misjackson lee of texas. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: i thank the chairman and i want to thank my ranking member, ms. johnson, for her leadership. his thank mr. smith for
chair machineship of the committee and i have known the commitment to science that so many members have. i hope that my amendment reinforces some of the emphasis that we have had with respect to science, that scientists should control the direction and guidance of our research. the national science foundation is simply that. and i hope my amendments, both number 3 and number 4 contribute to that premise. i'd like to acknowledge the rules committee for making these in order. the jackson lee amendment seeks to improve h.r. 3293 by ensuring that n.s.f.-funded research as it has been remains consistent with established and widely accepted scientific methods applicable to the study of
exploration and grant recipients would now follow protocols would ensure that the outcomes of research are able to be reproduced by scientists and researchers. science is the work that is created that makes the ultimate work in decades and centuries to come, having served on the science committee some years back, i used to always say cience is the work of the 21st century. creating products, research, you create opportunities for jobs and products to be sold. this is what good science is all about and basic research relies on the routine of practice and research around the world. i believe the national science foundation gets it and that is what their underlying work is. the jackson lee would support the promise that that good science should be the underlying
goal. history has shown that basic research leads to results with the beneficial consequences for society. i would ask my colleagues to support this amendment and with that, i reserve my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. smith: i claim the time in opposition but i do not oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognizeded. mr. smith: i support this amendment. the amendment requires in additional to them making a grant is worthy of federal funding in the national interest they must determine that the grant is consistent with established and widely scientific amendments. i agree this is an important determination, basic research funded by taxpayers must have a sound scientific foundation.
they are to be duplicated working by someone else is the gold standard in the scientific method. they should ensure that the research it funds so taxpayers' dollars do not go to waste. i do support it. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the chairman. i ask my colleagues to support the jackson lee amendment and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in part b of house report 114-420. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the desk.
the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in part b of house report 114- 20 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: i restate my earlier premise that science is the work of the 21st century because when you are innovative and do research you create jobs and opportunities. this amendment establishes that basic research is in the national interests of the united states. let me suggest to you that with all of the universities that we have in this country, when i travel, i always hear individuals seeking to come to be taught in american institutions of education -- of higher education. it is because of the creative thought and the research that is done whether in medicine or all
the forms of science, technology because we have a free-flowing basis upon which people can think and invent, i want that to continue and i want the national science foundation to be the cornstone of that. i have in my hand why declining research threatens u.s. innovation deficit. i ask unanimous consent that it may be placed in the record. thoonching you. what this paper cites, notable scientific advancements, landing of a manmade. and parallel which provided origin of the june universe and world's fastest computer and plant buyology that is discovering ways to make global food requirktse. none of these, however, mr. chairman, were u.s.-led.
my amendment turns our attention again maybe to the obvious, maybe if i say alexander bell as children in school everybody knew that he created the telephone and george washington carver was associated with the many scientific discoveries out of a single peanut. and those in this month when they would teach us african-american history, we would all know george washington carver and a role model that was a scienceist and generated thousands of scientists. and so i want my amendment to emphasize that we want the long list of innovation to be on our side and to continue the tradition and trajectory that we have had of basic research that then applies to all levels to create opportunities of work and genius that is here in this country. i ask my colleagues to support my amendment and