Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 3293.

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have one more Member on the way to the floor to speak, and then I am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my 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. 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 an analysis of Federal data by the Associated Press, the Obama administration set new records 2 years in a row for denying the media access to government files. More than that, in an unprecedented letter to several congressional committees, 47 inspectors general, who are the official watchdogs of Federal agencies, complained that the Justice Department, EPA, 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 to 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 ``nothing in this section shall be construed as altering the Foundation's intellectual merit or broader impacts criteria for evaluating grant applications.'' 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 are worthy of Federal funding. Again, this is false. The bill actually corrects a past problem with some NSF-funded grants. Often, the title and an incomprehensible summary were all that was publicly available about a research grant. The bill ensures that a project's benefits are clearly communicated to earn the 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 NSF should be funding. Improving computing and cybersecurity, advancing new energy sources, discovering new medicines and cures, and creating advanced materials are just some of the ways that NSF-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 the NSF funds projects that don't meet such standards, 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 National Science Board have endorsed the principle that NSF 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 NSF Director, who has approved the national interest standard in the current guidelines? It is just inconceivable to me that an elected U.S. Representative would oppose requiring government grants funded by the U.S. taxpayer to be spent in the national interest. Whose money do they think the NSF spends on these frivolous research grants? The 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? I think that is exactly how the taxpayers' dollars should be spent. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee). The amendment requires that, in addition to the National Science Foundation making a determination that a grant is worthy of Federal funding and in the national interest, the NSF must also determine that the grant is: consistent with established and widely accepted scientific methods applicable to the field of study or exploration. I agree that this is an important determination. Basic research funded by taxpayers must have a sound scientific foundation. Reproducibility--the ability of an entire experiment or study to be duplicated--especially by someone else working independently, is the gold standard in the scientific method. NSF should ensure that the research it funds meets this gold standard so taxpayer dollars do not go to waste. I thank the gentlewoman for her amendment, and I do support it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the National Science Foundation Director and the National Science Board have both expressed and endorsed a principle that NSF should be more transparent and accountable in its grant funding decisions. In fact, the NSF has already incorporated the national interest standard in their guidelines. This amendment creates loopholes and dilutes the intent of the bill-- a bill that NSF Director France Cordova has testified: is very compatible with the new internal NSF guidelines and with the 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 balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin), who is on his way to the podium right now.

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I accept the gentlewoman's amendment. It clarifies that the new requirements in the bill do not apply to grants that have already been awarded by the National Science Foundation. I agree that the bill is not intended to be retroactive. In January 2015, NSF began to implement new internal guidelines that promote accountability and transparency. These guidelines are compatible with this bill, but the implementation of them is a work in progress. I will continue to communicate with NSF about how they implement their internal guidelines, but agree that this bill will only apply to future grants, once enacted. So, Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I accept the gentlewoman's amendment. It clarifies that it is in the national interest to fund grants that support the development of an American STEM workforce that is globally competitive and that includes computer science and the information technology sectors. In October, the President signed into law the STEM Education Act, a bill that I introduced with my colleague Ms. Esty, which expands the definition of STEM to include computer science. This amendment reinforces that new Federal definition of STEM. It is a perfecting amendment to the bill, and I welcome it. I agree with my colleague that it is in the national interest to support creating training a STEM workforce which includes computer science, and I support her amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the motion to recommit. H.R. 3293, the Scientific Research in the National Interest Act, is a bipartisan bill that ensures the grant process at the National Science Foundation is transparent and accountable to the American people. America's future economic 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' daily lives. NSF invests about $6 billion of taxpayers' funds every year on research projects and related activities. Unfortunately, in recent years, the Federal Government has awarded too many grants that few Americans would consider to be in the national interest. Only one out of five grant proposals are approved. We cannot fund every worthy proposal, much less frivolous ones like $516,000 to create a video game called ``Relive Prom Night.'' The legislation before us reaffirms in law that every NSF grant must support research that is in the national interest. The 1950 enabling legislation that created the NSF 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 in the National Interest Act reaffirms and restores this crucial mission and requires the NSF grants meet at least one of seven criteria that demonstrate it is in the national interest. This will add transparency, accountability, and credibility to the NSF and its grant process. Opponents of this bill must think they know better than the NSF Director. Director Cordova testified before the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee that the policy in H.R. 3293 is ``compatible with the NSF's internal guidelines.'' This legislation makes that standard clear, explicit, and permanent. Scientists still make the decisions. They just do not get a blank check signed by the taxpayer. They need to be accountable to the American people by showing their proposals are in the national interest. The National Science Foundation has supported and continues to support basic research into the causes and prevention of crime and mass violence. NSF-funded research has included studies of violent impulse behavior, cultural and social factors affecting predisposition to violence, the links between mental disorders and violent behavior, parenting and parental influences over their children's disposition toward violent behavior, and patterns of crime and violence in American cities. There is no need for this motion to recommit. In fact, it is an inappropriate earmark. For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to reject the motion to recommit and to support the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding, and I appreciate the chairman of the Rules Committee 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's scientific merits and how it serves the national interest. This written justification affirms the 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 NSF grants should meet at least one of seven criteria that demonstrate 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 part of the National Science Foundation 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 workforce 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 and do receive support and flourish. The amendments that were not made in order by the Rules Committee would have opened up this NSF 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, Space, and Technology Committee, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, as well as five other Democratic amendments. This rule allows us to have that fair debate, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Every criticism I have heard in the last few minutes about this bill could be addressed if those who oppose the bill just took the time to read the bill. It is only three pages long. You can probably read it in 3 minutes. They would see that their opposition has no foundation whatsoever.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3033) to require the President's annual budget request to Congress each year to include a line item for the Research in Disabilities Education program of the National Science Foundation and to require the National Science Foundation to conduct research on dyslexia, with the Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, 2016 marks the 10th anniversary for the School of Science and Technology (SST) located in my district in San Antonio, Texas. SST provides a K-12 curriculum concentrated on educating students in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). In the rapidly changing world of science and technology, it is critical that our students receive STEM education from an early age. For a decade, SST has provided students with such an opportunity. SST has been ranked among the top high schools in Texas for multiple years and has received the Bronze, Silver and Gold rankings from US News and World Report. This is a testament to the school's dedication to providing STEM education to students in the San Antonio area. As Chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, I am committed to ensuring that our nation's youth have the scientific and mathematical skills to thrive in a technology-based economy. And I commend SST for its continued efforts to provide advanced STEM education to K-12 students. In appreciation of all they have done, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the 10th anniversary of SST.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding me time, and I support S.J. Res. 22, which rejects the Environmental Protection Agency's waters of the United States rule. This rule is just another one of EPA's many attempts to expand its jurisdiction and increase its power to regulate American waterways, even if that means invading Americans' own backyards. The Science, Space, and Technology Committee's oversight hearings revealed that the EPA made arbitrary decisions in writing this rule and justified it with phony science. And the Government Accountability Office found that the EPA's use of social media to promote the rule actually violated the law. The Obama administration will do anything and say anything to impose its liberal agenda on the American people. I urge my colleagues to support S.J. Res. 22 and disapprove the waters of the United States rule.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 691, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, for yielding me time. I also want to thank both him and the Transportation Committee chairman himself, Bill Shuster, for their work on this legislation. This bill ensures the safety and security of our maritime borders and maritime interests around the globe. The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology shares jurisdiction with the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee over important research and development programs carried out by the Coast Guard. These programs improve search and rescue, navigation, marine safety, marine environmental protection enforcement of laws and treaties, ice operations, oceanographic research, and defense readiness. The bill also authorizes funding to help acquire a new Polar icebreaker and requires a study of alternatives for conducting icebreaking operations. The Coast Guard's icebreakers are critical to the United States missions in the polar regions, which include important research supported by the National Science Foundation. I look forward to the results of the study this bill calls for on cost-effective alternatives for icebreaking. This will help us ensure taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and efficiently. Again, I thank Chairman Hunter and Chairman Shuster for taking the initiative with this critical legislation.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from Texas (Mr. Ratcliffe) for his work on this legislation, for his earlier generous comments, and for yielding me time as well. I also want to thank both him and the gentleman from Texas, Michael McCaul, the full committee chairman, for their work on this legislation. The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology shares jurisdiction with the Homeland Security Committee over the research and development programs carried out by the Department of Homeland Security. In the case of this bill, H.R. 3578, it is the R&D of the Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate, which was established by legislation that originated in the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, likewise, shares jurisdiction of the bill we just considered, H.R. 3875. That bill will assess and plan DHS research and development of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosives defenses. Next year, the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology expects to continue to advance science and technology efforts to counter terrorist threats to the homeland. In anticipation of today's legislation, our committee exercised its jurisdiction by holding two hearings. In September of 2014, the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology's Research and Technology Subcommittee held a joint DHS S&T Directorate oversight hearing with Homeland Security's Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Security Technologies Subcommittee. The hearing focused on a series of Government Accountability Office reviews that found serious problems with management and coordination of R&D within the Department of Homeland Security. This includes fragmented and overlapping R&D programs and millions of taxpayer dollars spent on duplicative R&D projects. The GAO recommended that the S&T Directorate develop stricter policies and guidance to help define, oversee, coordinate, and track R&D across the Department of Homeland Security. The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology conducted a follow-up oversight hearing on October 27 of this year. At that hearing, Under Secretary Brothers described the progress made in its implementation of the GAO's recommendations and updated us on the S&T Directorate's initiatives to help DHS meet the full spectrum of threats. The legislation before the House today reflects the work of the members of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and the Committee on Homeland Security to help the S&T Directorate meet a broad range of homeland security challenges by stretching the technological envelope. The bill establishes a clear mission for the Directorate, updates its responsibilities, and requires strategy and R&D plans to prioritize addressing homeland threats. It also authorizes targeted cybersecurity R&D projects and creates new S&T integrated product teams to develop technological solutions to meet the Department's mission areas and address threats to the homeland. Last week's horrifying terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, just days after a terrorist attack in Paris, reminds us that this legislation is ultimately about defending the American people and our country from terrorists. Again, I thank Chairman McCaul for taking the initiative with this critical legislation, and I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ratcliffe) as well.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Americans' distrust of national news outlets continues to rise because of the media's persistent bias and one-sided coverage. A recent Pew Research Center survey found that nearly two-thirds, or 65 percent, of Americans believe the national news media has a negative effect on our country. This is because the media slants stories with their opinions instead of reporting the facts. For example, the media often praises President Obama's regulations involving climate change, but their reports fail to cite the costs of extreme environmental regulations and the loss of jobs. National news stories also fail to mention that these regulations would have little impact on global warming. Americans will continue to believe the media has a negative impact on the country until the media provides the American people with the facts, rather than tells them what to think.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the national liberal media repeatedly comment that the current administration is ``scandal free.'' But that's because they ignore scandals involving Democrats. For example, Hillary Clinton claims that everyone knew she used a private email server as Secretary of State. Yet, White House officials stated they were unaware of the server. The media has yet to pursue what was known or why the use of this server was allowed. The national media also has failed to uncover who gave the orders for the IRS to target conservatives or if White House officials helped cover up the incident. And when an American is murdered by an illegal immigrant, the press never connects the loss of life to the president's refusal to enforce our immigration laws. The only people who believe the administration is ``scandal free'' are its allies in the national liberal media.