Scientific Research in the National Interest Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this bill, which represents an effort by politicians to overrule expert scientists in deciding which scientific grants the NSF should fund.

In defense of their misguided effort, some of my colleagues like to pick a grant and poke fun at it or trivialize it or simply state that, in their opinion, it is not worth funding.

One of the grants that has been singled out is entitled Participant Support for the Zero Emissions Category of the Clean Snowmobile Challenge.

Snowmobiles are ideal modes of transportation in extreme polar locations. This grant funded the Clean Snowmobile Challenge in which students formed teams to engineer a lower emissions snowmobile.

Engineering competitions are both an important proving ground for new technologies and an incredible opportunity for students to engage in real-world engineering challenges.

My colleagues frequently talk up the importance of STEM competitions. The Science, Space, and Technology Committee has held entire full committee hearings on that very topic. Now some of my same colleagues would ridicule an engineering competition just because it might have a climate change benefit.

I hope all of my colleagues here today agree with me that encouraging and, certainly, promoting our next generation of engineers is definitely in the national interest, even when it results in less pollution.

This grant, singled out for ridicule by some in the majority, is just another example of why we should be concerned about the intent of this legislation.

I would also like to point out that I strongly believe that the current gold standard merit-review process works and that we should not be politicizing science.

The sheer number of amendments to this legislation demonstrates the flawed methodology of trying to define which research is in the national interest.

I think all of the Members who offered amendments to this section would agree that important priorities have been left out. Personally, I believe we have unacceptably overlooked clean drinking water and climate change.

I offered an amendment with Congressman Kildee that would expand the priority of advancement of health and welfare to include clean drinking water explicitly. Unfortunately, this amendment was not made in order.

As we have seen in the news recently out of Flint, Michigan, we have taken our drinking water infrastructure for granted for decades. This neglect and lack of investment has caused serious public health issues.

We need to invest more, but we should not invest in a 20th or, in some cases, in a 19th century drinking water system.

A 21st century economy requires a 21st century infrastructure, but that cannot happen unless it is coupled with the critical research that will help us improve the construction, the operation, and the maintenance of our water systems. Our Nation's future public health and economic development are counting on it.

Clean drinking water is one of many important priorities not listed in this legislation. However, beyond missing important priorities, I am concerned that this legislation will limit critical research.

The exciting part of research is that, at the start, we do not know what we will find; so, we cannot accurately predict ahead of time all of the implications the research will have on specific national priorities. Instead, we should invest and encourage high-risk, high- reward research.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source