Crime Victims Fund Preservation Act of 2013

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I share the sentiments of the chairman. Space technology is critically important. I want to acknowledge the work that was originally done by Bobby Braun, who is now at Georgia Tech, Mike Gazarik, who now is the chief space technologist at NASA doing an extraordinary job, but the resources are needed.

I want to thank you for offering this amendment because it points us toward greater resources in that regard. I am familiar with the great work that is being done in your home State of Ohio at the Glenn Research Center.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Madam Chair, I would join and sign such a request to the

Madam Chair, I want to acknowledge the great work of the gentleman from Texas on patent reform. We worked together and he led the effort that has reformed our patent system, I think, in a remarkable way.

The majority leader and I spent some time on one of the last vote days here to go over to NIH and hear from Dr. Collins about great research, particularly interested in pediatric cancers and the like.

So these are two gentlemen, the authors of this amendment, who have been very positive and focused in a number of areas that I share with them. However, this amendment is misguided, and I want to speak in opposition to it.

The notion that we would want to eliminate certain investigations by the National Science Foundation into economic science or behavioral science, when we talk about disasters, the reason why we have saved so many lives, it is not just that we have improved weather forecasting, even though that would be eliminated in terms of the moneys here for investigative purposes by the National Science Foundation, but also understanding the behaviors of people facing disasters is very important. That would be cut.

This area of posttraumatic stress is a critical area. We know now that many of our returning soldiers face posttraumatic stress, but we also know that children living in very difficult circumstances in our country are more traumatized than if they were living in a war zone, an active war zone in another country. So eliminating, cutting back scientific investigations in this regard would be, I think, disastrous.

That is why I am hoping that whatever is causing this, there will be some reversal of it eventually. But in the meantime, I want to suggest to the House that we should oppose this amendment, we should oppose the notion that somehow we don't want to know certain things.

I was at the University of Pittsburgh. I saw some results of National Science Foundation funding that started out 30 years ago that a Member on this floor would be on the floor complaining about now. It was the examination of what happens in the neurons of a monkey when they move their arm, what neurons fire off in their brain.

Well, that research today, 30 years later, literally has a woman who, because of a disease, has no control of her body, but can now move an artificial arm through her thoughts. This is the result of research by the National Science Foundation. It is the world premier basic science foundation, it is the model for our economic competitors. They are imitating it.

A small country like Singapore with less than 5 million people is investing $7 billion in their national science foundation. Here we are, the wealthiest country in the world, and we are putting $7.4 billion, which is the highest ever, and I thank the chairman.

But now we want to put handcuffs on the agency about what it is that they can look at in terms of improving the life chances of Americans. The research has paid off. That is why we are the great country that we are today. The World Economic Forum says our Nation and our Nation's economy is driven by innovation.

The last thing that we should be doing on the floor of this House is equivocating or compromising or making it more challenging for those who are engaged in the innovation ecosystem to do their work.

Even though I compliment the gentleman, Mr. Smith, and the majority

leader, Mr. Cantor, for all their efforts, I can't imagine for the life of me why we would be on this floor tonight debating a retreat on behavioral science, on economic science. It makes no sense. I would hope that the House, notwithstanding the fact that the majority is held by the other team, I hope in this instance, as the chairman said, we would realize that this is not a competition between Democrats and Republicans. We are competing against countries that have big and plus populations like China and India, they want to eat our lunch economically, and what we need to do is stop the bickering back and forth and figure out what is best for our country.

The chairman and I voted for Simpson-Bowles. We were one of just less than 40 Members who did so. I might be in the minority on this vote, but I am going to vote on what is in the best interest of our Nation, and that is to continue to invest in innovation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, in defense of the National Science Foundation and in opposition to these cuts, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey, Congressman Holt. This is another one of these amendments that works against the effort of the committee, which is to try to increase--in fact, we did increase--the National Science Foundation's budget.

Madam Chair, in reclaiming my time, there will also be

another amendment on NSF that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) may speak to, and with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), who represents, in part, one of the greatest research triangles in the country outside of Philadelphia.

I am opposed to this amendment.

I do, however, want to yield to the gentlelady from the great State of Florida--part of the Space Coast, and who does an extraordinary job--to speak on behalf of Legal Services. Before I do that, I want to make one point.

Last year alone, Legal Services helped 41,000 veterans of the United States of America who were facing foreclosure and had other challenges related to disability claims.

This notion that we should do away with access to courts for people who have worn the uniform to protect our rights, I think, is wrongheaded.

I yield to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Castor) to speak further on this subject.

Reclaiming my time, in closing, I participated with the former Attorney General, Dick Thornburgh, in a pro bono effort for some of our major law firms, which is great. However, national Legal Services in many of these rural communities, unlike a big city like Philadelphia, don't have the benefit of the law firms where they can have pro bono partners and the like. If they are going to have a lawyer for a soldier, a veteran who needs help on a foreclosure, it is going to be Legal Services.

So to cut off their access to the court is the wrong thing for us to do, and I oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to these efforts to target the funding for the National Science Foundation's Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences directorate (SBE).

The world is changing rapidly, and we need quality research to help us understand how imminent and unforeseen changes in areas such as technology, climate, immigration, and the economy will affect our society and our future. And these things do have policy implications.

We shouldn't be wasting hard-earned taxpayer money, in fact, on policy solutions that are not rooted in sound research, precisely the type of research that some of these efforts here today seek to curtail.

As a result of research funded by the SBE directorate, for example, we are learning how to better respond to natural and economic disasters, how to improve the educational methods practiced in our Nation's classrooms, how to expand outreach to children regarding STEM education.

We have learned how to increase the safety of our troops in combat, how to better reduce violence among our young people, and we have expanded our knowledge of how the human mind works through the BRAIN Initiative, led by Ranking Member Fattah and Chairman Wolf.

In this era of Tea Party preeminence and so-called fiscal discipline at the expense of rational policy decisions, taking cheap shots at Federal programs and research projects has become a favorite indoor sport.

I wish my conservative colleagues would spend as much time learning the facts about the programs they deride as they do in preparing the flurry of floor amendments and floor speeches to target them.

Helping policymakers make informed decisions is what NSF's Political Science Program (PSP), in particular, is all about. Let me just say a word about the SBE's Political Science Program, which is close to my heart by virtue of my previous life.

The PSP has consistently produced valuable, practical research that informs policymakers and government agencies on issues as vital as natural disaster response, environmental regulation, and foreign policy. Here are a few examples.

NSF's Political Science Program helps us gain a better understanding of public reactions to natural disasters, including Hurricane Katrina, which was researched at Rice University, as well as to the BP oil spill, which was researched at Louisiana State University. It has helped Federal, State, and local authorities develop more effective evacuation and recovery plans.

It has supported research on the causes and consequences of terrorist attacks, at Pennsylvania State University and at UNC-Chapel Hill; on competition for natural resources as a driving force in international conflict, research at the University of Georgia and at the University of Colorado; on third-party peacemaking, research at the University of Notre Dame; and on dispute resolution mechanisms that lead to lasting peace, at the University of Alabama-Tuscaloosa.

But this isn't just about political science research; it's about the entire SBE. NSF's rigorous peer-review process assures that only meritorious proposals are funded.

In an era when a quick Internet search can generate a statistic or an opinion to support any argument, it is more important than ever that we have clear, dependable, peer-reviewed research into the most pressing social, behavioral, and economic questions of the day.

Should you question the quality of such research, I simply note that nearly a quarter--that is 50 of 212--of the Nobel Prize winners in science funded by NSF since 1951 were recipients of funding from the SBE program. Every winner of the Nobel Prize in economic sciences since 1998 has been an NSF grantee.

In short, SBE taps the best minds in the country to help us better understand and address some of the most vexing policy dilemmas we face. The body of work it has produced informs the decisions of America's first responders, military leaders, regulators, diplomats, and policymakers.

I urge my colleagues to reject misguided attempts to target the work of NSF and, in particular, of the Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences Directorate, which is and will be uniquely valuable in informing our country's policy decisions as we face the future.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to shift $7 million in funding from the NASA space operations account to NASA's space technology mission. I strongly support and urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I strongly support the improvements to the overall NASA budget, but I am concerned that we are missing a critical opportunity in the space technology account.

The space technology mission supports game-changing research and development that enhances our current missions and expands the opportunity for future missions.

For example, at NASA Glenn in Ohio, space technology research supports the Solar Electric Propulsion project, developing critical energy technologies to enable cost-effective trips to Mars and across the inner solar system to enrich a variety of next-generation journeys and to do so more energy effectively and efficiently.

This transformative work advances not only our space exploration program, but our economy and our national well-being, with spin-off benefits to advanced manufacturing, our commercial energy sector, defense, automotive, and commercial aviation industries and countless other applications.

The Space Technology Mission Directorate's focus on partnerships and strategic integration promotes technology transfer and commercialization within private sector companies, sprouting new businesses and the important jobs that accompany the future. This exciting work challenges our brightest minds, including many of our young people, to excel and create a pipeline of innovation driving our economy into the future.

I understand limitations of the constrained budget we are working with and want to thank Ranking Member Fattah and our esteemed chairman, Frank Wolf, to better fund NASA's Space Technology Program and other critical research and development efforts.

My amendment merely shifts $7 million in funding to the space technology account from the space operations account. It is a small but important step in the right direction, and space operations has been given quite a substantial increase. In addition, my amendment would actually reduce outlays by $2 million for fiscal year 2015.

So I think it is a win-win-win on all fronts. I look forward to continuing to work with the chairman and the ranking member and our colleagues as the bill moves forward in the Senate and further address the needs of this important program.

I would urge support of the Kaptur amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the chairman so very much.

This is my moment also to add my voice to the other Members here who have celebrated and expressed gratitude to Chairman Wolf for his years of service to the people of the United States and this great Republic.

I don't think I will ever hear the word ``Darfur'' and not see Frank Wolf's face in my mind's eye. I don't think that I will ever read articles that deal with child hunger, wherever it might exist, in some of the most forgotten places on Earth, and not think of Frank Wolf.

I will always remember, sir, your gentlemanly manner, your great passion. I will always recall the work that you have done to stand up for those who speak for liberty in places, forgotten corners in China, for religious leaders who have been suppressed around the world. And what a great patriot you are and a gentleman who can work across the aisle and whose word is always gold.

I thank you very, very much for your support on this amendment. We wish you Godspeed in the years ahead. I know all my colleagues join me in wishing you well and thank you for your exemplary service.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I just want to thank the ranking member who had such a broad range, Ranking Member Fattah, certainly in the space science arena, but also in urban development, energy, and so many other facets of what we do as a committee and as a country. I want to thank you very much for being able to work in a collegial way on this amendment. We thank you very much for remaining true to your commitment to true science.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, first I want to thank the majority leader, Mr. Cantor, for his earlier comments about our National Science Foundation amendment. I appreciate his efforts to hold the NSF accountable for its grant funding decisions.

The Smith-Cantor amendment reduces the fiscal year 2015 funding in the bill, the National Science Foundation's Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences directorate, or SBE directorate, by more than $15 million. This reduction will freeze SBE at its current funding level rather than increase it to the level requested by the President.

The Smith-Cantor amendment maintains the overall level of National Science Foundation research funding in the bill. It redirects the amount of the SBE cut to the physical sciences and engineering, the areas that were prioritized in the NSF authorization act reported out of the Science Committee yesterday.

Much of the research funded through the SBE directorate has obvious scientific merit and is in the national interest. But the SBE directorate has also funded dozens, perhaps hundreds, of questionable grants. For example, when the National Science Foundation pays a researcher more than $227,000 to thumb through the pages of old National Geographic magazines to look at animal pictures, taxpayers feel as though the NSF is thumbing its nose at them.

The NSF also spent $340,000 for a study of human-set forest fires 2,000 years ago in New Zealand. Americans who have lost their homes and businesses to wildfires could ask how this helps them.

Taxpayers can't help but wonder why NSF spent $1.5 million of their money to study rangeland management in Mongolia rather than, say, in Texas.

We shouldn't reward frivolous use of taxpayer money with even more money. This is what the President has proposed.

The Smith-Cantor amendment zeros out the SBE increase for fiscal year 2015. This should encourage the NSF to apply higher standards when awarding its grants.

Yesterday, the House Science Committee marked up the FIRST Act, legislation that reauthorizes NSF programs.

My colleagues and I approved an amendment to the bill that cuts the SBE directorate to $150 million, $100 million less than the current fiscal year. That is where we think the discussion ought to start next year. So this amendment is only the first step.

I also want to point out the SBE directorate isn't the only source of questionable NSF grants. For instance, NSF that handed out $700,000 for ``The Great Immensity,'' a climate change musical, and $5.6 million for a climate change scavenger hunt and phone game.

Such grants make taxpayers even more skeptical about how their hard- earned tax dollars are being spent and diminishes public support for scientific research.

Investments in science are essential if our country is to continue to lead the world in nanotechnology, supercomputing, and other fields that yield new jobs, new businesses, and, in fact, entire new industries.

The way to restore public support is not to continue funding questionable grants with taxpayer money.

The Smith-Cantor amendment is a small but important step in the right direction. It sets the precedent for the Science Committee, the Appropriations Committee, and the House to take additional steps in the future to assure that NSF-funded research is, in fact, in the national interest.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, this amendment would cut about $67 million from the National Science Foundation's appropriations increase--again, increase; not reduce their funding, but reduce the increase--and apply that amount to the spending reduction account.

The cuts in this amount are to four areas not directly involved in basic research such as construction, education and human resources, agency operations, and the Office of the National Science Board.

In 2007 and again in 2010, NSF was granted funding to launch new STEM education programs under the America COMPETES Act, not to mention the Recovery Act stimulus with the same focus.

Unfortunately, the U.S. continues to fall behind in producing enough STEM workers to compete globally, and our high school graduates' math and science scores are stagnant.

A 2013 GAO study found that 209 different Federal STEM education programs overlap across 13 agencies, spending a total of $3 billion--$3 billion, with a b. GAO also found that 173 of these programs shared similarities in objectives and focus.

The underlying committee report acknowledges program reductions and consolidation and yet increases spending on education and human resources by $29.5 million for an abandoned program that will be taken over by existing programs.

More often than not, increasing Federal Government spending on non- research science initiatives grows the Federal Government, not just the next generation of scientists.

Today, we are the world's leader in combined Federal as well as private sector investment in research and development, at last estimate, $465 billion for 2014.

Some are worried that China will catch up to our spending by the 2020s. Of course, those making that assumption also estimate that both the U.S. and China will be spending $600 billion each by 2022. Is Federal spending a race in which we want to engage with China?

National government expenditure per capita on R&D in China is $218 per capita--again, research and development in China is $218 compared to the U.S. per person amount of $1,276. This is not sustainable.

As the science community can attest, Congress often overpromises on funding and pulls the rug out on projects halfway through.

NSF is sitting on unnecessary and outmoded facilities without needed action on whether to close and sell. NSF should not be given more money for new facilities until it is established that NSF is operating existing facilities efficiently and effectively.

I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

Madam Chair, in closing, I am not cutting basic research here at all. I am suggesting cuts in the directorate.

There are just silly things that they have--the Climate Change Narrative Game, for instance, and the climate change media exhibition that portrays scientists and students at work in Amazonia, which is the indoctrination of young girls. There is ``The Matter of Origins.'' I could go on and on.

I believe in research. I am an applied scientist, and I am a physician. We are not cutting research. In fact, I believe in research, yet what we are doing is just trying to cut the directorate and save the taxpayers money.

We are broke as a Nation, and we have just got to stop spending money at random and without, really, responsibility. I encourage the acceptance of my amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.