Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment seeks to strike and replace the entire underlying bill with Senate legislation which differs with the House bill in many respects. The Senate bill, S. 1297, is a work product of the Senate. It has not been negotiated with any Member of this Chamber. In fact, the Senate just marked up the bill yesterday. This amendment abdicates the House's legislative responsibilities to the Senate. The SPACE Act paves the way for the next generation of explorers and innovators. This amendment prevents the House from providing any direction for the future of space exploration. We must consider what we will forfeit if we accept this amendment. The amendment significantly shortens the extension of the regulatory learning period and the extension of the indemnification regime. These changes reduce certainty in the commercial launch market and could threaten the jobs of thousands of Americans. These are hard- working men and women who depend on the extension of these laws for their jobs. They count on us to provide some certainty for their industry. This amendment strikes all of the commonsense transparency provisions in the SPACE Act and significantly shortens the extension of the learning period. This extension is essential to the health of the commercial space industry. Also, this amendment includes a significant reduction to the regulatory flexibility provided in the underlying bill. The underlying bill requires assessments from the FAA on the growth of the industry, constructive interactions between stakeholders and the FAA, a glide path to a safety framework that enables and encourages innovations, and improvements in safety. These are all part of a development structure that combines lessons learned from the industry with the inherent government function to protect the public. The underlying bill preserves FAA's ability to regulate commercial human spaceflight in order to protect national security, public health, and safety. It also preserves FAA's existing authorities to regulate spaceflight participant and crew safety. This amendment does not include any comparable benchmarking tools for Congress to monitor the growth of the industry. The amendment removes the ability of stakeholders to work with the FAA to develop safety standards that will improve the industry as a whole. The amendment will have a chilling effect on the industry and put stakeholders on the defense against an onslaught of government intervention and possible lawsuits. This does not support a dynamic space economy or encourage innovation. This amendment assumes that the commercial space industry has not placed a priority on safety. It is unfortunate that the minority looks at the American entrepreneurial spirit in this way. Under the Senate bill, spaceflight participants would be exposed to significant financial risk and liability. This amendment strikes the vital provisions of the underlying bill which help ensure that human spaceflight is available to anyone who wants to participate. The minority talks a lot about safety. I appreciate that. I think everyone involved in the space industry places a high priority on these endeavors being as safe as possible. I just wish the minority had a higher opinion of the scientists, engineers, and technicians building these systems. Let's be clear. Space is inherently risky. America's memory is imprinted with tragic events such as the Apollo 1 fire, Challenger, and Columbia. The appropriate way to improve safety systems and reduce risk is to test, launch, learn, study, and repeat. The entire space industry is behind this bill. I do not oppose the gentlewoman's amendment simply because the Senate bill has no good qualities. I oppose the gentlewoman's amendment because it would abdicate the responsibilities of the House. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and not turn their backs on so many space companies. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, though I don't oppose the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I don't oppose it.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would require NSF to establish a program originally authorized in the 2007 COMPETES Act. I support the gentleman's amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would add a sense of Congress of Congress' support for the NSF's Innovation Corps program in the underlying bill. This language would include the promotion of a strong innovation system with investments and support for female entrepreneurs. I-Corps is an excellent program. I support the gentlewoman's amendment and appreciate her offering it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I do not think I am going to disagree with what the gentlewoman from Connecticut has to say during her remaining time, so I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hurd).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would include teacher training for STEM competitions and collaborations as permitted activities under a program in the bill to encourage engagement in STEM education activities. Supporting out-of-school activities, like competitions, is consistent with the underlying bill, so I accept the gentlewoman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, though I don't oppose the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, though I don't oppose the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, as set forth in the report that accompanied the Science, Space, and Technology Committee approval of the America COMPETES Act, NSF will maintain full funding for research in the hard science areas of geoscience like deep-ocean drilling and geological research to find new energy resources. What our bill does do is reduce funds that have been used by NSF to fund low priorities like a survey of Norwegian tourism, teaching TV meteorologists about climate change, and creating climate change video games. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul), my colleague and the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman's amendment ignores the law of the land. She and more than 90 other Democrats supported the Budget Control Act, which was signed into law by the President. This amendment ignores those budget caps. I support a responsible and sustainable path forward for U.S. science, research, and development; but it is neither responsible, nor sustainable, to spend more and more taxpayer dollars and increase the debt that future generations will inherit. We must prioritize the areas of basic research to ensure future economic competitiveness and spur private sector innovation. Since the last Congress, we have worked hard to reach an agreement with the minority on numerous policy issues, but we have been clear since the beginning that increases in spending need to have reasonable offsets. This amendment fails to include any offsets and openly ignores the Budget Control Act. I urge my colleagues to support a balanced approach of fiscal responsibility and targeted investments in priority, science, and basic research. Vote ``no'' on the amendment and ``yes'' on the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to close, so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Moolenaar), who is a member of the Science Committee and also a vice chairman of the Research and Technology Subcommittee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to sponsor H.R. 1806, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015, a pro-science, fiscally responsible bill that sets America on a path to remain the world's leader in innovation. This bill reauthorizes civilian research programs at the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Department of Energy, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. H.R. 1806 prioritizes basic research and development, while staying within the caps set by the Budget Control Act. America's businesses rely on government support for basic research to produce the scientific breakthroughs that spur technological innovation, jump-start new industries, and spur economic growth. Title I of the bill reauthorizes the National Science Foundation for 2 years and provides a 4.3 percent increase for research and related activities. The bill prioritizes funding for the Directorates of Biological Sciences, Computer and Information Science and Engineering, Engineering, and Mathematics and Physical Sciences and recognizes the need to make strategic investments in basic R&D for the U.S. to remain the global leader in science and innovation. The bill reprioritizes research spending at NSF by cutting funding for the Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences and the Directorate for Geosciences. Federal budget restraints require all taxpayers' dollars to be spent on high-value science in the national interest. Unfortunately, NSF has funded a number of projects that do not meet the highest standards of scientific merit, from climate change musicals, to evaluating animal photographs in National Geographic, to studying human-set fires in New Zealand in the 1800s. There are dozens of other examples. The bill ensures accountability by restoring the original intent of the 1950 NSF Act and requiring that all grants serve the ``national interest.'' The NSF has endorsed this goal. Title II represents the Science, Space, and Technology Committee's commitment to enhancing STEM education programs. A healthy and viable STEM workforce is critical to American industries and ensures our future economic prosperity. The definition of STEM is expanded to include computer science, which connects all STEM subjects. The bill also creates an advisory panel on STEM education to ensure outside stakeholders have a role in assessing the Federal STEM education portfolio. Title III includes three bipartisan bills the Science, Space, and Technology Committee approved in March. Those bills, H.R. 1119, the Research and Development Efficiency Act; H.R. 1156, the International Science and Technology Cooperation Act of 2015; and H.R. 1162, the Science Prize Competitions Act, passed the committee by voice vote. Two of these were sponsored by the Democrats. Title IV supports the important measurement, standards, and technology work taking place at the National Institute of Standards and Technology laboratories, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program, and the recently authorized Network for Manufacturing Innovation. Measurement science conducted at NIST contributes to industrial competitiveness by supporting the technical infrastructure and advancements for nanotechnology, global positioning systems, material sciences, cybersecurity, health information technology, and a variety of other fields. Title V reauthorizes the Department of Energy Office of Science for 2 years, at a 5.4 percent increase over fiscal year 2015. It prioritizes basic research that enables researchers in all 50 States to have access to world-class user facilities, including supercomputers and high- intensity light sources. This bill also prevents duplication and requires DOE to certify that its climate science work is unique and not being undertaken by another Federal agency. Title VI reauthorizes the DOE applied research and development programs and activities for fiscal year 2016 and 2017. They include the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, the Office of Nuclear Energy, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the Office of Fossil Energy, and the Advanced Research Projects Agency- Energy. H.R. 1806 refocuses some spending on late-stage commercialization efforts within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to research and development efforts. The bill requires DOE to provide a regular strategic analysis of science and technology activities within the Department, identifying key areas for collaboration across science and applied research programs. Title VII proposes to cut red tape and bureaucracy in the DOE technology transfer process. It allows contractor-operators at DOE national laboratories to work with the private sector more efficiently by delegating signature authority to the directors of the labs themselves, rather than to DOE contracting officers, for cooperative agreements valued at less than $1 million. This title also requires DOE to assess its capability to authorize, host, and oversee privately funded fusion research and the next generation fission reactor prototypes. Currently, the private sector has little incentive to build reactor prototypes due to regulatory uncertainty from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In summary, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1806 sets the right priorities for Federal civilian research, which enhances innovation and U.S. competitiveness without adding to the Federal deficit and debt. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber), who is the chairman of the Energy Subcommittee of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the gentlewoman's amendment. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I support a responsible and sustainable path forward for U.S. science, research, and development. We must prioritize the areas of basic research to ensure future U.S. economic competitiveness and spur private sector innovation. This amendment ignores the caps set by the Budget Control Act, which the ranking member herself supported, and ignores the tough choices that must be made to protect the American taxpayer and future generations from more debt. It is irresponsible not to adhere to the Budget Control Act, which was signed into law by President Obama. The Budget Control Act was a bipartisan agreement that 95 Democrats voted for, including the ranking member. Now, she wants to ignore that particular law. Although many Members would like to see the Budget Control Act replaced, it is the law of the land, and we should abide by it. Of course, it is easy just to propose more spending, knowing it will sound good, even if it is irresponsible and against the law. In fiscal year 2016 alone, this amendment would increase spending by $600 million over the current level and the underlying bill. The amendment increases spending on later-stage research and technology, best done by the private sector. Since last Congress, we have worked hard to reach an agreement with the minority on numerous policy issues, and we have accepted many of their provisions and ideas to make this bill stronger. For example, we strengthened STEM provisions related to a new advisory panel and coordinating office. We also included language in support of NIST that passed the House floor on a bipartisan vote last year. Also, in title III of the bill are three pieces of bipartisan legislation that passed the Science Committee by voice vote in March. Two of those three pieces of legislation were sponsored by Democrats. I urge my colleagues to support a balanced approach of fiscal responsibility and targeted investments in priority science and basic research and vote ``no'' on the Democratic substitute. The Democratic substitute ignores the Budget Control Act and does not advance good science in America. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 1806.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I will simply say to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster) that I recognize and appreciate him. He is a smart, thoughtful, and well-motivated member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, so I am really sorry he opposes this national interest standard that, I think, is the right thing to do for America and for the American taxpayers. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), who is a very active and talented member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin), who is a member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), who is a member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.