Eddie Johnson

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I yield the gentleman from Maryland an additional 1 minute.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ted Lieu).

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON. Mr. Chair, I have no further requests for speaking. I just urge everyone to vote ``no'' on this bill, and I yield back the balance of time.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate that this amendment makes a few small improvements to the bill, so I will not oppose it. However, I want to take a moment to reflect on how this amendment demonstrates how flawed the process on the majority's bill has been. In this amendment, the chairman restores an arbitrary 11 percent cut to the EPSCoR program, in addition to the prestigious NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program, scientific instrumentation for smaller institutions that cannot afford their own, and interdisciplinary research centers. Even our colleagues on Appropriations prioritized full funding for this account at NSF while they made steep cuts to other accounts. It just happens that EPSCoR States overall are represented by many more Republicans than Democrats; so, when the Science Committee Republicans proposed cutting funding for the EPSCoR program by 11 percent, their caucus took notice. If only the chairman had actually given the stakeholder community, his colleagues, and the research and development agencies an opportunity for a hearing or to see and respond or work in subcommittee on it and respond to this bill before introducing it, we wouldn't have had to fix all of these very big mistakes today. I am glad the chairman is now restoring the cut to EPSCoR and the other important programs in that account. I only wish he would have listened to an overwhelming call by the stakeholder community and even some of his own colleagues to restore the other arbitrary and shortsighted cuts in this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk as the designee of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Foster for his leadership on this important issue. Section 106 exemplifies the majority's efforts to impose their own personal beliefs and ideologies on the process of scientific discovery. Colleagues, science is not about belief; it is about discovery and the pursuit of questions about both the natural world and the human world. We should hold NSF accountable, and NSF should hold its grantees accountable. However, accountability should be measured according to the transparency and integrity of the grant review process, not according to what types of science some of us believe in and some don't. Had we imposed the section 106 requirement on NSF earlier, they may have never funded the grant that led to billions in revenue from the spectrum auction. They may never have funded the grant that the DOD now uses to help train our soldiers on the front lines to differentiate between friend and foe. They may never have funded the grant that led to the creation of Google. Chairman Smith has been investigating NSF grants he doesn't like since he became chairman of this committee. The entire purpose of section 106 is to give him a bigger club to continue his unfounded investigations in the future. This is bad for NSF, and it is worse for the U.S. leadership in science and innovation. I urge my colleagues to think long and hard about the consequences of imposing our own political views and review on the NSF's gold-standard scientific merit review process, and I urge the support of Mr. Foster's amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster), a physicist.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and want to thank the author for bringing it forward and thank the chairman of the committee for supporting it. Our support historically goes back to Congresswoman Connie Morella. The two of us did a study maybe 15 or 16 years ago, and we both have been very, very supportive of women in the sciences and hope that we can get a better bill so that we can address getting them ready for these jobs.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman and all of the persons who sponsored this amendment. I want to commend them. When Mr. Lujan was on the Science Committee, we actually developed that language that did pass in the last COMPETES Act, so I fully support this amendment.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment allows the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the majority leader of the Senate to appoint members to two scientific advisory boards created in the bill. This amendment is the very definition of politicalizing science when we have politicians choosing who sits on scientific advisory boards. While my colleagues across the aisle suggest that this amendment ensures accountability, in reality, it only ensures the political meddling in science. Unfortunately, this is consistent with many provisions in the underlying bill. Scientific advisory boards provide expert scientific advice and make recommendations on subject matter from STEM education to energy research and development. It is essential that advisory board members be qualified and nonpolitical to provide nonpartisan advice and give appropriate recommendations that are free of bias, advice and recommendations based on the best available evidence, and advice and recommendations that will further science in the country, not inhibit it. In this amendment, the Speaker of the House would appoint three members, while the majority leader of the Senate would appoint two additional members to this advisory board. Some of these advisory boards have only 15 members. This amendment would allow Republican--and only Republican--leaders of Congress to appoint one-third of these members. This amendment is clearly meant to politicize these advisory boards. While the sponsor of this amendment is messaging it as giving Congress a bigger voice, that is just not accurate, asked for, or necessary. Congress already has the biggest and final voice. We control the Federal budget. Congress writes authorization bills such as the one before us today. We do not lack influence. Let's keep our scientific advisory boards free from political interference. If we choose to ignore the advice from our scientific advisory boards, as we are doing with H.R. 1806, that is our right. Congress doesn't also have to put its fingerprints directly on the advice itself. We know by what has been said today that we are trying to take over the responsibility on this bill that I am against, so that is one way you can do it. This amendment follows the underlying attack on science in this bill, but this amendment goes further. It gives Republican politicians a chance to directly influence the scientific process in our country. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I served in both the house and senate in Texas before coming here; I believe strongly in input, but this very bill and its structure has become so political and so politically tainted in attempting to manipulate what is going on in our agencies, I just don't trust your amendment.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I strongly support the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program, or the MEP, at NIST. Since its establishment in 1988, the MEP program has generated billions of dollars in new sales; it has saved MEP clients billions of dollars; and it has helped create more than 700,000 jobs. However, I cannot support this amendment because it increases the authorization for MEP by decreasing the authorization for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at the Department of Energy. EERE conducts important research on energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies, including critical advance manufacturing initiatives. Unfortunately, EERE has become a favorite target for my friends on the other side of the aisle. The underlying bill cuts this office by almost 30 percent, and this amendment would make that cut even larger. I supported an amendment that would have increased MEP authorization to $141 million for fiscal year 2016, at the President's request, without cutting EERE. But the amendment was not made in order. I strongly believe in MEP and want to see this funding level increased. I think it is important to note that this bill is an authorization bill, not an appropriations bill. In authorization bills, Congress should be deciding authorization levels by determining what the program needs to accomplish its responsibilities. Notwithstanding current Republican protocols, authorization bills should not have the same constraints as appropriation bills, including needing to offset any increases. This is a bizarre approach to legislating. Because of the unnecessary cut to EERE, I cannot support this amendment, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject the false notion of needing to offset authorizations. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.