Senate Confirmations; Debate on Amendment to Cut NSF Funding

NEWS FLASH: This afternoon, the Senate confirmed Neal Lane to be Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and Bill Richardson to be Secretary of Energy.

As reported in FYI #113 , during House debate of the VA/HUD funding bill, an amendment by Rep. Mark Sanford (R-SC) and Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA) to cut funding for NSF research programs was defeated. The quotes below give some flavor of the debate over the amendment on the House floor:

Ed Royce (R-CA): “Mr. Chairman, we have a responsibility to the American people to see that their tax money is being spent wisely. Asking them to dip just a little further into their pockets to pay $178,000 for a study on maintaining self-esteem does not fulfill that responsibility.... Another recent grant for $220,000 was handed over to a researcher for a study entitled ‘Status Dominance and Motivational Effects on Nonverbal Sensitivity and Smiling.’ I will submit my finding for free. Spending that much hard-earned money on sensitivity and smiling will wipe the smiles off the taxpayers’ faces and make them pretty darn insensitive.”

Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY): “Mr. Chairman, the poet Alexander Pope remarked centuries ago that a little learning is a dangerous thing. This amendment is a good example of that principle.... First of all, the Dear Colleague letters about this amendment have cited several NSF project titles that have been grossly misinterpreted.

“Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a product of faulty research.... [L]et us not make the mistake of judging a grant by its title. We should resoundingly vote down this amendment and demonstrate our continued support for the outstanding work performed by the National Science Foundation.”

Mark Sanford (R-SC): “The reason that this amendment is offered by Mr. Royce and myself and the reason [it is] supported by the National Taxpayers Union, the reason supporting it by Citizens against Government Waste is because it makes common sense.... When I stand in front of a grocery store back home in my district and talk to folks, they talk about how they have to set priorities within their homes.... [T]his is simply an amendment about priorities. Again, it leaves in place $2.5 billion for funding for the National Science Foundation research. It simply says let us put our house in order.”

Vern Ehlers (R-MI): “I would remind my colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina, that when his people come out of the store, my colleague might ask them what they think of the laser scanner that was used to get them out of the store more quickly and more efficiently, because development of the laser was financed in part by the National Science Foundation.

“Let me also comment on a few other specifics because...much of this debate arises out of a misunderstanding of the scientific terms used.... Some terms used in science which are similar to everyday language have totally different meanings when used scientifically. As an example, consider ‘billiards,’ which was referred to in one of the ‘Dear Colleagues’ [letters].... Billiards we all understand is a game. But, in science, the work is used to describe a theory which originally was developed to explain the collisions and interaction between rigid objects, but today is used to describe collisions and trajectories of small objects, such as atoms, molecules and nuclei, within confined areas.”

George Brown (D-CA): “I remember when we first started debating this subject of research grant titles, one popular target was a grant titled ‘The sex life of the screw worm’.... But actually, as we pointed out many times, this innocuous piece of research has saved the cattle industry of Texas hundreds of times over what the cost of the actual research project was, because it involves the mode of reproduction of one of the pests that is of greatest importance to the Texas cattle industry.... But this is merely one more example, to go along with the others that have already been mentioned, showing why one needs to look beyond the titles themselves to the content of the research in order to have some understanding of what its importance is.”

Mark Foley (R-FL): "[O]bviously, the National Science Foundation does not get it. The U.S. taxpayer should not be funding research that has dubious scientific merit, at best.”

Jerry Lewis (R-CA): “Mr. Chairman, both the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] and I have prepared a very extensive response to this amendment but, frankly, because of the pressures of time and otherwise, let me suggest simply that the National Science Foundation is among the committee’s and the Congress’s very high priorities.

“It is rather standard for critics of NSF often to pick a handful of examples of that which they would call excess, and usually those examples, while they have a title that can be used conveniently, do not reflect at all the specific project in terms of its detail.... These items funded by NSF come under very serious review. NSF relies on the judgment of over 60,000 independent reviewers, each of whom has expertise in his or her field.... [E]ach proposal is reviewed by an average of 4 to 11 experts and ranked on its scientific merit.... It is important for the Members to know that we strongly support this bill in its present form.”

Mark Neumann (R-WI): “I am a former math teacher, and I taught everywhere from 7th grade on up through college courses. I find the study on the geometric applications to billiards to be of particular interest to me personally.... But do I think I want to go into the households in Wisconsin’s first district...and say to those families that we are going to take your tax dollars and use those tax dollars for purposes of doing a study on billiards? I do not think so.”

Debbie Stabenow (D-MI): “I rise today as someone representing middle Michigan where those middle-class families that have been discussed today are rising every day to go to work in jobs that have more and more technology involved in their employment.... In my opinion, there are two efforts critically important that we are engaged in nationally on behalf of Americans, and that is education and a focus on research and technology development for future jobs and future quality-of-life opportunities for our citizens.... The National Science Foundation is a small investment in a major effort to increase the quality of life for our citizens, and I would strongly urge a ‘no’ vote on this amendment.”