4:12 PM EDT

Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-TX 30th

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Foster for his leadership on this important issue.

Section 106 exemplifies the majority's efforts to impose their own personal beliefs and ideologies on the process of scientific discovery. Colleagues, science is not about belief; it is about discovery and the pursuit of questions about both the natural world and the human world.

We should hold NSF accountable, and NSF should hold its grantees accountable. However, accountability should be measured according to the transparency and integrity of the grant review process, not according to what types of science some of us believe in and some don't.

Had we imposed the section 106 requirement on NSF earlier, they may have never funded the grant that led to billions in revenue from the spectrum auction. They may never have funded the grant that the DOD now uses to help train our soldiers on the front lines to differentiate between friend and foe. They may never have funded the grant that led to the creation of Google.

Chairman Smith has been investigating NSF grants he doesn't like since he became chairman of this committee. The entire purpose of section 106 is to give him a bigger club to continue his unfounded investigations in the future.

[Time: 16:15]

This is bad for NSF, and it is worse for the U.S. leadership in science and innovation. I urge my colleagues to think long and hard about the consequences of imposing our own political views and review on the NSF's gold-standard scientific merit review process, and I urge the support of Mr. Foster's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

4:12 PM EDT

Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-TX 30th

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Foster for his leadership on this important issue.

Section 106 exemplifies the majority's efforts to impose their own personal beliefs and ideologies on the process of scientific discovery. Colleagues, science is not about belief; it is about discovery and the pursuit of questions about both the natural world and the human world.

We should hold NSF accountable, and NSF should hold its grantees accountable. However, accountability should be measured according to the transparency and integrity of the grant review process, not according to what types of science some of us believe in and some don't.

Had we imposed the section 106 requirement on NSF earlier, they may have never funded the grant that led to billions in revenue from the spectrum auction. They may never have funded the grant that the DOD now uses to help train our soldiers on the front lines to differentiate between friend and foe. They may never have funded the grant that led to the creation of Google.

Chairman Smith has been investigating NSF grants he doesn't like since he became chairman of this committee. The entire purpose of section 106 is to give him a bigger club to continue his unfounded investigations in the future.

[Time: 16:15]

This is bad for NSF, and it is worse for the U.S. leadership in science and innovation. I urge my colleagues to think long and hard about the consequences of imposing our own political views and review on the NSF's gold-standard scientific merit review process, and I urge the support of Mr. Foster's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

4:12 PM EDT

Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-TX 30th

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Foster for his leadership on this important issue.

Section 106 exemplifies the majority's efforts to impose their own personal beliefs and ideologies on the process of scientific discovery. Colleagues, science is not about belief; it is about discovery and the pursuit of questions about both the natural world and the human world.

We should hold NSF accountable, and NSF should hold its grantees accountable. However, accountability should be measured according to the transparency and integrity of the grant review process, not according to what types of science some of us believe in and some don't.

Had we imposed the section 106 requirement on NSF earlier, they may have never funded the grant that led to billions in revenue from the spectrum auction. They may never have funded the grant that the DOD now uses to help train our soldiers on the front lines to differentiate between friend and foe. They may never have funded the grant that led to the creation of Google.

Chairman Smith has been investigating NSF grants he doesn't like since he became chairman of this committee. The entire purpose of section 106 is to give him a bigger club to continue his unfounded investigations in the future.

[Time: 16:15]

This is bad for NSF, and it is worse for the U.S. leadership in science and innovation. I urge my colleagues to think long and hard about the consequences of imposing our own political views and review on the NSF's gold-standard scientific merit review process, and I urge the support of Mr. Foster's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

4:12 PM EDT

Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-TX 30th

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Foster for his leadership on this important issue.

Section 106 exemplifies the majority's efforts to impose their own personal beliefs and ideologies on the process of scientific discovery. Colleagues, science is not about belief; it is about discovery and the pursuit of questions about both the natural world and the human world.

We should hold NSF accountable, and NSF should hold its grantees accountable. However, accountability should be measured according to the transparency and integrity of the grant review process, not according to what types of science some of us believe in and some don't.

Had we imposed the section 106 requirement on NSF earlier, they may have never funded the grant that led to billions in revenue from the spectrum auction. They may never have funded the grant that the DOD now uses to help train our soldiers on the front lines to differentiate between friend and foe. They may never have funded the grant that led to the creation of Google.

Chairman Smith has been investigating NSF grants he doesn't like since he became chairman of this committee. The entire purpose of section 106 is to give him a bigger club to continue his unfounded investigations in the future.

[Time: 16:15]

This is bad for NSF, and it is worse for the U.S. leadership in science and innovation. I urge my colleagues to think long and hard about the consequences of imposing our own political views and review on the NSF's gold-standard scientific merit review process, and I urge the support of Mr. Foster's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

4:12 PM EDT

Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-TX 30th

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Foster for his leadership on this important issue.

Section 106 exemplifies the majority's efforts to impose their own personal beliefs and ideologies on the process of scientific discovery. Colleagues, science is not about belief; it is about discovery and the pursuit of questions about both the natural world and the human world.

We should hold NSF accountable, and NSF should hold its grantees accountable. However, accountability should be measured according to the transparency and integrity of the grant review process, not according to what types of science some of us believe in and some don't.

Had we imposed the section 106 requirement on NSF earlier, they may have never funded the grant that led to billions in revenue from the spectrum auction. They may never have funded the grant that the DOD now uses to help train our soldiers on the front lines to differentiate between friend and foe. They may never have funded the grant that led to the creation of Google.

Chairman Smith has been investigating NSF grants he doesn't like since he became chairman of this committee. The entire purpose of section 106 is to give him a bigger club to continue his unfounded investigations in the future.

[Time: 16:15]

This is bad for NSF, and it is worse for the U.S. leadership in science and innovation. I urge my colleagues to think long and hard about the consequences of imposing our own political views and review on the NSF's gold-standard scientific merit review process, and I urge the support of Mr. Foster's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

4:12 PM EDT

Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-TX 30th

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Foster for his leadership on this important issue.

Section 106 exemplifies the majority's efforts to impose their own personal beliefs and ideologies on the process of scientific discovery. Colleagues, science is not about belief; it is about discovery and the pursuit of questions about both the natural world and the human world.

We should hold NSF accountable, and NSF should hold its grantees accountable. However, accountability should be measured according to the transparency and integrity of the grant review process, not according to what types of science some of us believe in and some don't.

Had we imposed the section 106 requirement on NSF earlier, they may have never funded the grant that led to billions in revenue from the spectrum auction. They may never have funded the grant that the DOD now uses to help train our soldiers on the front lines to differentiate between friend and foe. They may never have funded the grant that led to the creation of Google.

Chairman Smith has been investigating NSF grants he doesn't like since he became chairman of this committee. The entire purpose of section 106 is to give him a bigger club to continue his unfounded investigations in the future.

[Time: 16:15]

This is bad for NSF, and it is worse for the U.S. leadership in science and innovation. I urge my colleagues to think long and hard about the consequences of imposing our own political views and review on the NSF's gold-standard scientific merit review process, and I urge the support of Mr. Foster's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

4:12 PM EDT

Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-TX 30th

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Foster for his leadership on this important issue.

Section 106 exemplifies the majority's efforts to impose their own personal beliefs and ideologies on the process of scientific discovery. Colleagues, science is not about belief; it is about discovery and the pursuit of questions about both the natural world and the human world.

We should hold NSF accountable, and NSF should hold its grantees accountable. However, accountability should be measured according to the transparency and integrity of the grant review process, not according to what types of science some of us believe in and some don't.

Had we imposed the section 106 requirement on NSF earlier, they may have never funded the grant that led to billions in revenue from the spectrum auction. They may never have funded the grant that the DOD now uses to help train our soldiers on the front lines to differentiate between friend and foe. They may never have funded the grant that led to the creation of Google.

Chairman Smith has been investigating NSF grants he doesn't like since he became chairman of this committee. The entire purpose of section 106 is to give him a bigger club to continue his unfounded investigations in the future.

[Time: 16:15]

This is bad for NSF, and it is worse for the U.S. leadership in science and innovation. I urge my colleagues to think long and hard about the consequences of imposing our own political views and review on the NSF's gold-standard scientific merit review process, and I urge the support of Mr. Foster's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

4:13 PM EDT

Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-TX 30th

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Foster for his leadership on this important issue.

Section 106 exemplifies the majority's efforts to impose their own personal beliefs and ideologies on the process of scientific discovery. Colleagues, science is not about belief; it is about discovery and the pursuit of questions about both the natural world and the human world.

We should hold NSF accountable, and NSF should hold its grantees accountable. However, accountability should be measured according to the transparency and integrity of the grant review process, not according to what types of science some of us believe in and some don't.

Had we imposed the section 106 requirement on NSF earlier, they may have never funded the grant that led to billions in revenue from the spectrum auction. They may never have funded the grant that the DOD now uses to help train our soldiers on the front lines to differentiate between friend and foe. They may never have funded the grant that led to the creation of Google.

Chairman Smith has been investigating NSF grants he doesn't like since he became chairman of this committee. The entire purpose of section 106 is to give him a bigger club to continue his unfounded investigations in the future.

[Time: 16:15]

This is bad for NSF, and it is worse for the U.S. leadership in science and innovation. I urge my colleagues to think long and hard about the consequences of imposing our own political views and review on the NSF's gold-standard scientific merit review process, and I urge the support of Mr. Foster's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

4:13 PM EDT

Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-TX 30th

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Foster for his leadership on this important issue.

Section 106 exemplifies the majority's efforts to impose their own personal beliefs and ideologies on the process of scientific discovery. Colleagues, science is not about belief; it is about discovery and the pursuit of questions about both the natural world and the human world.

We should hold NSF accountable, and NSF should hold its grantees accountable. However, accountability should be measured according to the transparency and integrity of the grant review process, not according to what types of science some of us believe in and some don't.

Had we imposed the section 106 requirement on NSF earlier, they may have never funded the grant that led to billions in revenue from the spectrum auction. They may never have funded the grant that the DOD now uses to help train our soldiers on the front lines to differentiate between friend and foe. They may never have funded the grant that led to the creation of Google.

Chairman Smith has been investigating NSF grants he doesn't like since he became chairman of this committee. The entire purpose of section 106 is to give him a bigger club to continue his unfounded investigations in the future.

[Time: 16:15]

This is bad for NSF, and it is worse for the U.S. leadership in science and innovation. I urge my colleagues to think long and hard about the consequences of imposing our own political views and review on the NSF's gold-standard scientific merit review process, and I urge the support of Mr. Foster's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

4:15 PM EDT

Lamar S. Smith, R-TX 21st

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 [Page: H3447]

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.

4:15 PM EDT

Lamar S. Smith, R-TX 21st

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 [Page: H3447]

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.

4:15 PM EDT

Lamar S. Smith, R-TX 21st

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 [Page: H3447]

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.

4:18 PM EDT

Bill Foster, D-IL 11th

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment, which I understand has been introduced, would strike section 106 of the bill, which, in my view, adds a dangerous political filter to NSF's gold-standard merit review process.

I do not stand alone in this view. The overwhelming majority of my colleagues in the scientific community are still quite uncomfortable with this language that would, as the American Society for Microbiology stated, ``have an adverse impact on NSF's peer review process, which is essential to funding meritorious research.'' All of us here want to be good stewards of taxpayer money.

This is also true of the National Science Foundation, which currently already requires that the NSF public award abstract consist of a nontechnical component which will include ``a public justification for NSF funding by articulating how the project serves the national interest,'' as stated by NSF's mission: to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; or to secure the national defense.

As the Biophysical Society has pointed out: ``NSF is committed to ..... offering the public a better understanding of a research project's intent, which will satisfy this section's objective.''

The whole intent of this mystifies me a little bit. I serve on two committees--the Financial Services Committee and the Science, Space, and Technology Committee. On the Financial Services Committee, there is a steady drumbeat of Republican proposals to remove duplicitous and redundant requirements that just waste everyone's time; whereas, it seems to me that section 106 is exactly along this line. While it may just seem an innocuous waste of time to some, we know that for the past 2 years scientists

have had their projects targeted as potentially wasteful or not ``in the national interest,'' often based on nothing but their titles. Not only is this wrong, it is blatantly political.

It is easy to make cheap shots here. My parents, actually, both worked for Senator Bill Proxmire, who for years and years did the Golden Fleece Awards. He was a wonderful and thoughtful Senator, but on this one, he consistently missed the mark. It is easy to make fun of projects with funny sounding names or with strange topics, but the NSF is the gold standard for a reason.

Take, for example, anthropologist Dr. Scott Atran, who received funding from the NSF in 1994 for a study that was entitled, ``Local Ecological Knowledge of Common-Pool Resources in Campeche, Mexico.'' Dr. Atran subsequently applied what he learned to questions of extremism in the Middle East and is now a key national expert on countering extremism in the Middle East, valued as a consultant by the Department of Defense and the Department of State.

The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman from Texas has expired.

4:18 PM EDT

Bill Foster, D-IL 11th

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment, which I understand has been introduced, would strike section 106 of the bill, which, in my view, adds a dangerous political filter to NSF's gold-standard merit review process.

I do not stand alone in this view. The overwhelming majority of my colleagues in the scientific community are still quite uncomfortable with this language that would, as the American Society for Microbiology stated, ``have an adverse impact on NSF's peer review process, which is essential to funding meritorious research.'' All of us here want to be good stewards of taxpayer money.

This is also true of the National Science Foundation, which currently already requires that the NSF public award abstract consist of a nontechnical component which will include ``a public justification for NSF funding by articulating how the project serves the national interest,'' as stated by NSF's mission: to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; or to secure the national defense.

As the Biophysical Society has pointed out: ``NSF is committed to ..... offering the public a better understanding of a research project's intent, which will satisfy this section's objective.''

The whole intent of this mystifies me a little bit. I serve on two committees--the Financial Services Committee and the Science, Space, and Technology Committee. On the Financial Services Committee, there is a steady drumbeat of Republican proposals to remove duplicitous and redundant requirements that just waste everyone's time; whereas, it seems to me that section 106 is exactly along this line. While it may just seem an innocuous waste of time to some, we know that for the past 2 years scientists

have had their projects targeted as potentially wasteful or not ``in the national interest,'' often based on nothing but their titles. Not only is this wrong, it is blatantly political.

It is easy to make cheap shots here. My parents, actually, both worked for Senator Bill Proxmire, who for years and years did the Golden Fleece Awards. He was a wonderful and thoughtful Senator, but on this one, he consistently missed the mark. It is easy to make fun of projects with funny sounding names or with strange topics, but the NSF is the gold standard for a reason.

Take, for example, anthropologist Dr. Scott Atran, who received funding from the NSF in 1994 for a study that was entitled, ``Local Ecological Knowledge of Common-Pool Resources in Campeche, Mexico.'' Dr. Atran subsequently applied what he learned to questions of extremism in the Middle East and is now a key national expert on countering extremism in the Middle East, valued as a consultant by the Department of Defense and the Department of State.

The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman from Texas has expired.

4:22 PM EDT

Lamar S. Smith, R-TX 21st

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.

4:22 PM EDT

Daniel Lipinski, D-IL 3rd

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my good friend from Illinois for his strong commitment to advocating for scientific research. I share many of his concerns about the underlying bill, and I will be voting against this bill. However, I must also oppose this amendment. I agree with Mr. Foster and I disagree with the chairman on some of the attacks on some past grants that have been granted by the NSF. I think section 106 helps to avoid that.

The first incarnation of what is now section 106 was the High Quality Research Act, which was unveiled

nearly 2 years ago. I strongly opposed that, as did the vast majority of the research community, and we set about getting that changed. Through a series of discussions, the current language--vastly different and vastly improved from the original--was reached with a broad definition of national interest that does not do anything to undermine the gold-standard NSF peer review system. I invite all to read the section and decide for themselves, or to simply listen to the NSF and to the NSB, which

oversees the NSF.

As the chairman said, NSF Director France Cordova stated her support for section 106 at a committee hearing in February, saying it is ``very compatible with the NSF internal guidelines and with the mission statement of NSF.''

I applaud NSF for these new guidelines which explain to the public why each proposal is being funded and how it is in the national interest. This will help the NSF defend worthwhile grants that are attacked by critics who sometimes misrepresent projects. In doing so, it will also protect the NSF.

While the National Science Board does not formally endorse legislation, at the meeting 2 weeks ago, the board passed a resolution strongly endorsing the principle that all Foundation-funded research must further the national interest by contributing to the Foundation's mission.

So, while I agree with my friend on almost everything related to science policy, I must reluctantly oppose this amendment. I wish we could have been able to have worked out a COMPETES bill we could all support. Regrettably, we did not, but let's not throw out this language that was worked out and that will help the NSF defend its peer review process.

4:22 PM EDT

Daniel Lipinski, D-IL 3rd

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my good friend from Illinois for his strong commitment to advocating for scientific research. I share many of his concerns about the underlying bill, and I will be voting against this bill. However, I must also oppose this amendment. I agree with Mr. Foster and I disagree with the chairman on some of the attacks on some past grants that have been granted by the NSF. I think section 106 helps to avoid that.

The first incarnation of what is now section 106 was the High Quality Research Act, which was unveiled

nearly 2 years ago. I strongly opposed that, as did the vast majority of the research community, and we set about getting that changed. Through a series of discussions, the current language--vastly different and vastly improved from the original--was reached with a broad definition of national interest that does not do anything to undermine the gold-standard NSF peer review system. I invite all to read the section and decide for themselves, or to simply listen to the NSF and to the NSB, which

oversees the NSF.

As the chairman said, NSF Director France Cordova stated her support for section 106 at a committee hearing in February, saying it is ``very compatible with the NSF internal guidelines and with the mission statement of NSF.''

I applaud NSF for these new guidelines which explain to the public why each proposal is being funded and how it is in the national interest. This will help the NSF defend worthwhile grants that are attacked by critics who sometimes misrepresent projects. In doing so, it will also protect the NSF.

While the National Science Board does not formally endorse legislation, at the meeting 2 weeks ago, the board passed a resolution strongly endorsing the principle that all Foundation-funded research must further the national interest by contributing to the Foundation's mission.

So, while I agree with my friend on almost everything related to science policy, I must reluctantly oppose this amendment. I wish we could have been able to have worked out a COMPETES bill we could all support. Regrettably, we did not, but let's not throw out this language that was worked out and that will help the NSF defend its peer review process.

4:25 PM EDT

Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-TX 18th

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Specifically, the language says: ``Industry, government, and academic leaders cite increasing the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce as a top concern.''

This is in the American Community Survey Reports.

``One focus area for increasing the STEM workforce has been to reduce disparities in STEM employment by sex, race, and Hispanic origin. Historically, women, Blacks, and Hispanics have been underrepresented in STEM employment,'' and it goes on to elaborate.

[Time: 16:30]

This amendment gives an added opportunity to focus in, to hone in on teacher training and reaching out to those very hungry minds in the minority communities who are eager to be part of the changing fabric of America that focuses on science, technology, engineering, and math. From financial services, to homeland security, to space and aeronautics, to manufacturing, to the Silicon Valleys of the Nation, STEM is crucial.

I would like to now acknowledge both the committee staff on the majority and minority who assisted us, and I would like to acknowledge my staff, Lillie Coney, for her excellent work on these matters.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I ask for support of the Jackson Lee amendment.

[Begin Insert]

4:25 PM EDT

Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-TX 18th

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Specifically, the language says: ``Industry, government, and academic leaders cite increasing the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce as a top concern.''

This is in the American Community Survey Reports.

``One focus area for increasing the STEM workforce has been to reduce disparities in STEM employment by sex, race, and Hispanic origin. Historically, women, Blacks, and Hispanics have been underrepresented in STEM employment,'' and it goes on to elaborate.

[Time: 16:30]

This amendment gives an added opportunity to focus in, to hone in on teacher training and reaching out to those very hungry minds in the minority communities who are eager to be part of the changing fabric of America that focuses on science, technology, engineering, and math. From financial services, to homeland security, to space and aeronautics, to manufacturing, to the Silicon Valleys of the Nation, STEM is crucial.

I would like to now acknowledge both the committee staff on the majority and minority who assisted us, and I would like to acknowledge my staff, Lillie Coney, for her excellent work on these matters.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I ask for support of the Jackson Lee amendment.

[Begin Insert]

4:25 PM EDT

Suzanne Bonamici, D-OR 1st

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 162, lines 3 through 5, strike subsection (d).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Oregon.

4:25 PM EDT

Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-TX 18th

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Specifically, the language says: ``Industry, government, and academic leaders cite increasing the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce as a top concern.''

This is in the American Community Survey Reports.

``One focus area for increasing the STEM workforce has been to reduce disparities in STEM employment by sex, race, and Hispanic origin. Historically, women, Blacks, and Hispanics have been underrepresented in STEM employment,'' and it goes on to elaborate.

[Time: 16:30]

This amendment gives an added opportunity to focus in, to hone in on teacher training and reaching out to those very hungry minds in the minority communities who are eager to be part of the changing fabric of America that focuses on science, technology, engineering, and math. From financial services, to homeland security, to space and aeronautics, to manufacturing, to the Silicon Valleys of the Nation, STEM is crucial.

I would like to now acknowledge both the committee staff on the majority and minority who assisted us, and I would like to acknowledge my staff, Lillie Coney, for her excellent work on these matters.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I ask for support of the Jackson Lee amendment.

[Begin Insert]