Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

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, in closing, the gentlewoman's amendment would remove an important limitation from the underlying bill that prevents the Department of Energy from spending research dollars to fund commercial-scale biofuels development for defense purposes. DOE should focus on innovative research and development, not commercial production of any particular form of energy. For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I encourage Members to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, 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 yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk), who is also the chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

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, it is just inconceivable to me that any U.S. Representative would oppose requiring government grants funded by the U.S. taxpayer to be spent in the national interest. Throughout its history, the National Science Foundation has played an integral part in funding breakthrough discoveries in fields as diverse as mathematics, physics, chemistry, computer science, engineering, and biology. However, the NSF has approved a number of grants for which the scientific merits and national interest are not obvious, to put it politely. These include a climate change musical costing $800,000, evaluating animal photographs in National Geographic for at least $200,000, and studying early human-set fires in New Zealand, in the 1800s, for several hundred thousand dollars. The section this amendment strikes ensures that the NSF is transparent and accountable to the taxpayers about how their hard- earned dollars are spent. The bill requires that every NSF public announcement of a grant award be accompanied by a nontechnical explanation of the project's scientific merits and how it serves the national interest. The NSF itself has recognized the need for this transparency and accountability. Last January, the NSF released a new policy that acknowledges that the NSF must communicate clearly and in nontechnical terms the research projects it funds. The policy emphasizes that the title abstract for each funded grant should explain how the project serves the national interest, a requirement first cited in the 1950 legislation that created the National Science Foundation. Again, the national interest standard that the gentlewoman from Texas opposes was in the NSF's first charter. The current Director of the NSF herself has endorsed the national interest standard. In her testimony before the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee on February 25, NSF Director France Cordova spoke about the very section the gentlewoman seeks to eliminate. Dr. Cordova said: ``It is very compatible with the new internal NSF guidelines and with the mission statement of NSF.'' The national interest standard does not interfere with the merit review process. The 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.'' I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and to support the underlying legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. 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 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 yield myself such time as I may consume. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle today would have you believe that the only way you can be pro-science is to spend more taxpayer money than the Budget Control Act allows. That is irresponsible. If everything is a priority, then nothing is. Real priorities require making real choices. If synthetic biology research at NSF is a priority, we should stop using the American people's tax dollars to fund reviews of animal photographs in National Geographic magazine. If robotics and batteries are priorities, we should not continue to spend taxpayer dollars on climate change musicals. H.R. 1806 proves that we can set priorities, make tough choices, and still invest more in breakthrough research and innovation. I thank the members of the Science Committee who provided valuable input into H.R. 1806, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015; and that includes the cosponsors of the bill: Committee Vice Chairman Frank Lucas; all of our subcommittee chairs, Barbara Comstock, Randy Weber, Barry Loudermilk, and Jim Bridenstine; as well as Representatives Steve Palazzo, Randy Hultgren, Steve Knight, Brian Babin, and John Moolenaar. I urge the adoption of this pro-science, fiscally responsible bill. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the Record an exchange of letters between the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and the Committees on Education and the Workforce, Oversight and Government Reform, and Energy and Commerce. House of Representatives, Committee on Education and the Workforce Washington, DC, May 4, 2015. Hon. Lamar Smith, Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to confirm our mutual understanding with respect to H.R. 1806, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015. Thank you for consulting with the Committee on Education and the Workforce with regard to H.R. 1806 on those matters within the Committee's jurisdiction. In the interest of expediting the House's consideration of H.R. 1806, the Committee on Education and the Workforce will forgo further consideration of this bill. However, I do so only with the understanding this procedural route will not be construed to prejudice my Committee's jurisdictional interest and prerogatives on this bill or any other similar legislation and will not be considered as precedent for consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to my Committee in the future. I respectfully request your support for the appointment of outside conferees from the Committee on Education and the Workforce should this bill or a similar bill be considered in a conference with the Senate. I also request you include our exchange of letters on this matter in the Committee Report on H.R. 1806 and in the Congressional Record during consideration of this bill on the house Floor. Thank you for your attention to these matters. Sincerely, John Kline, Chairman.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chair, I have no other speakers at this time as well, so I will reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have no other speakers on this side, and I yield back 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 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 reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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 rise in opposition to the amendment.