5:07 PM EDT

Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-TX 30th

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, it is not surprising that the Biological and Environmental Research program at DOE is targeted with harmful provisions in this bill. It is targeted because the program is a leader in advancing our understanding of the causes and impacts of climate change.

Hiding our heads in the sand will not solve anything, and it certainly won't stop the Earth from warming. Allowing partisan politics to skew the scientific understanding of climate change is cynical and shortsighted.

It is especially cynical considering that in the majority's own bill, they state that climate change is happening. They just had to take the statement out that it is caused by human beings.

The gentleman from California's amendment would simply strike those harmful provisions so that scientists supported by BER can continue their important work without political interference.

I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

5:07 PM EDT

Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-TX 30th

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, it is not surprising that the Biological and Environmental Research program at DOE is targeted with harmful provisions in this bill. It is targeted because the program is a leader in advancing our understanding of the causes and impacts of climate change.

Hiding our heads in the sand will not solve anything, and it certainly won't stop the Earth from warming. Allowing partisan politics to skew the scientific understanding of climate change is cynical and shortsighted.

It is especially cynical considering that in the majority's own bill, they state that climate change is happening. They just had to take the statement out that it is caused by human beings.

The gentleman from California's amendment would simply strike those harmful provisions so that scientists supported by BER can continue their important work without political interference.

I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

5:07 PM EDT

Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-TX 30th

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, it is not surprising that the Biological and Environmental Research program at DOE is targeted with harmful provisions in this bill. It is targeted because the program is a leader in advancing our understanding of the causes and impacts of climate change.

Hiding our heads in the sand will not solve anything, and it certainly won't stop the Earth from warming. Allowing partisan politics to skew the scientific understanding of climate change is cynical and shortsighted.

It is especially cynical considering that in the majority's own bill, they state that climate change is happening. They just had to take the statement out that it is caused by human beings.

The gentleman from California's amendment would simply strike those harmful provisions so that scientists supported by BER can continue their important work without political interference.

I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

5:07 PM EDT

Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-TX 30th

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, it is not surprising that the Biological and Environmental Research program at DOE is targeted with harmful provisions in this bill. It is targeted because the program is a leader in advancing our understanding of the causes and impacts of climate change.

Hiding our heads in the sand will not solve anything, and it certainly won't stop the Earth from warming. Allowing partisan politics to skew the scientific understanding of climate change is cynical and shortsighted.

It is especially cynical considering that in the majority's own bill, they state that climate change is happening. They just had to take the statement out that it is caused by human beings.

The gentleman from California's amendment would simply strike those harmful provisions so that scientists supported by BER can continue their important work without political interference.

I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

5:08 PM EDT

Alan Lowenthal, D-CA 47th

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My amendment would do two important things. First, it would preserve the Energy Department's ability to select projects based on merit, and, second, it would preserve a very basic scientific tenet, the ability of the Department of Energy to replicate scientific results.

Right now, the underlying bill mandates the prioritization of certain scientific fields over others, and it terminates science initiatives that can validate or question the results of previous scientific research.

It is additionally unfortunate that in this formerly bipartisan bill, the majority is again attempting to specifically target and terminate the valuable research programs of some of our Nation's brightest scientists if they study climate change. I think this is shortsighted, I think it is irresponsible, and I believe it is wrong.

In order to ensure America's energy security, we must understand the multiplying risks to our energy infrastructure due to a changing climate. In order to ensure America's energy security, we must understand the lifecycle impacts of the fuels we use. And in order to ensure America's energy security, we must lead the world in developing clean renewable sources of energy.

For this vision to become a reality, the Department of Energy must support sound scientific processes that include selecting the most meritorious methods and questions that they wish to research and verifying those results through replication.

H.R. 1806, as it is currently written, specifically targets the climate change research program in the Energy Department and instructs the director to cease ``those climate science-related initiatives that are identified as overlapping or duplicative.''

A basic tenet of science is that you have to reproduce scientific results. You don't run an experiment once and go to the world and say, ``It's true. We've figured it out.''

No--science requires separate and independently verified results in order to draw conclusions. But now Congress is trying to legislate changes to the scientific method, and I think that is a shame.

Science works best when multiple groups and agencies collaborate to find answers to important questions. And guess what? Congress has already created a way to coordinate among the 13 Federal agencies to ensure that each agency is researching the causes and effects of global changes most relevant to their missions. And it is called the U.S. Global Change Research Program. The proposed requirements in section 505 of H.R. 1806 are really just an attempt to create more roadblocks to studying climate

change.

My amendment preserves the scientific integrity of the Office of Science, the U.S. Global Change Research Program and, more importantly, the scientific process.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Lowenthal amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

5:08 PM EDT

Alan Lowenthal, D-CA 47th

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My amendment would do two important things. First, it would preserve the Energy Department's ability to select projects based on merit, and, second, it would preserve a very basic scientific tenet, the ability of the Department of Energy to replicate scientific results.

Right now, the underlying bill mandates the prioritization of certain scientific fields over others, and it terminates science initiatives that can validate or question the results of previous scientific research.

It is additionally unfortunate that in this formerly bipartisan bill, the majority is again attempting to specifically target and terminate the valuable research programs of some of our Nation's brightest scientists if they study climate change. I think this is shortsighted, I think it is irresponsible, and I believe it is wrong.

In order to ensure America's energy security, we must understand the multiplying risks to our energy infrastructure due to a changing climate. In order to ensure America's energy security, we must understand the lifecycle impacts of the fuels we use. And in order to ensure America's energy security, we must lead the world in developing clean renewable sources of energy.

For this vision to become a reality, the Department of Energy must support sound scientific processes that include selecting the most meritorious methods and questions that they wish to research and verifying those results through replication.

H.R. 1806, as it is currently written, specifically targets the climate change research program in the Energy Department and instructs the director to cease ``those climate science-related initiatives that are identified as overlapping or duplicative.''

A basic tenet of science is that you have to reproduce scientific results. You don't run an experiment once and go to the world and say, ``It's true. We've figured it out.''

No--science requires separate and independently verified results in order to draw conclusions. But now Congress is trying to legislate changes to the scientific method, and I think that is a shame.

Science works best when multiple groups and agencies collaborate to find answers to important questions. And guess what? Congress has already created a way to coordinate among the 13 Federal agencies to ensure that each agency is researching the causes and effects of global changes most relevant to their missions. And it is called the U.S. Global Change Research Program. The proposed requirements in section 505 of H.R. 1806 are really just an attempt to create more roadblocks to studying climate

change.

My amendment preserves the scientific integrity of the Office of Science, the U.S. Global Change Research Program and, more importantly, the scientific process.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Lowenthal amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

5:11 PM EDT

Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-TX 30th

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, it is not surprising that the Biological and Environmental Research program at DOE is targeted with harmful provisions in this bill. It is targeted because the program is a leader in advancing our understanding of the causes and impacts of climate change.

Hiding our heads in the sand will not solve anything, and it certainly won't stop the Earth from warming. Allowing partisan politics to skew the scientific understanding of climate change is cynical and shortsighted.

It is especially cynical considering that in the majority's own bill, they state that climate change is happening. They just had to take the statement out that it is caused by human beings.

The gentleman from California's amendment would simply strike those harmful provisions so that scientists supported by BER can continue their important work without political interference.

I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

5:11 PM EDT

Bruce Westerman, R-AR 4th

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the gentleman's amendment and in support of the underlying reforms included in H.R. 1806, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015.

This amendment would remove important measures that ensure greater transparency for the Federal Government's climate science initiative and require accountability for the Office of Science to justify the value of related work going forward.

The gentleman's amendment would also remove underlying language in the America COMPETES Act that would require the Government Accountability Office to identify duplicative climate science initiatives across the entire Federal Government.

All Members of Congress should support transparency in federally funded research. It is our core responsibility to provide oversight for Federal programs and make sure American taxpayer dollars are being spent responsibly, not duplicating work that has already been done.

That said, the language in the America COMPETES Act does not ban any particular area of science but, instead, requires that DOE justify the science's merit and provide greater transparency if climate science work is intentionally duplicated.

This provision in the America COMPETES Act is simply good governance and is more important now than ever. The Obama administration has unapologetically pushed forward a politicized climate agenda through the Federal Government, prioritizing climate change research above all else. Better transparency can help prevent wasteful spending and prioritize the most valuable research.

H.R. 1806 authorizes the Office of Science within the Department of Energy to support basic research in the physical sciences, including research on Earth's atmosphere. By including these good government measures, the America COMPETES Act gives Congress appropriate oversight, funds valuable research, but does not provide a blank check for the President's climate agenda.

This amendment would strike these important accountability measures from the America COMPETES Act research. For that reason, I oppose the amendment and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

[Time: 17:15]

5:11 PM EDT

Bruce Westerman, R-AR 4th

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the gentleman's amendment and in support of the underlying reforms included in H.R. 1806, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015.

This amendment would remove important measures that ensure greater transparency for the Federal Government's climate science initiative and require accountability for the Office of Science to justify the value of related work going forward.

The gentleman's amendment would also remove underlying language in the America COMPETES Act that would require the Government Accountability Office to identify duplicative climate science initiatives across the entire Federal Government.

All Members of Congress should support transparency in federally funded research. It is our core responsibility to provide oversight for Federal programs and make sure American taxpayer dollars are being spent responsibly, not duplicating work that has already been done.

That said, the language in the America COMPETES Act does not ban any particular area of science but, instead, requires that DOE justify the science's merit and provide greater transparency if climate science work is intentionally duplicated.

This provision in the America COMPETES Act is simply good governance and is more important now than ever. The Obama administration has unapologetically pushed forward a politicized climate agenda through the Federal Government, prioritizing climate change research above all else. Better transparency can help prevent wasteful spending and prioritize the most valuable research.

H.R. 1806 authorizes the Office of Science within the Department of Energy to support basic research in the physical sciences, including research on Earth's atmosphere. By including these good government measures, the America COMPETES Act gives Congress appropriate oversight, funds valuable research, but does not provide a blank check for the President's climate agenda.

This amendment would strike these important accountability measures from the America COMPETES Act research. For that reason, I oppose the amendment and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

[Time: 17:15]

5:11 PM EDT

Bruce Westerman, R-AR 4th

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the gentleman's amendment and in support of the underlying reforms included in H.R. 1806, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015.

This amendment would remove important measures that ensure greater transparency for the Federal Government's climate science initiative and require accountability for the Office of Science to justify the value of related work going forward.

The gentleman's amendment would also remove underlying language in the America COMPETES Act that would require the Government Accountability Office to identify duplicative climate science initiatives across the entire Federal Government.

All Members of Congress should support transparency in federally funded research. It is our core responsibility to provide oversight for Federal programs and make sure American taxpayer dollars are being spent responsibly, not duplicating work that has already been done.

That said, the language in the America COMPETES Act does not ban any particular area of science but, instead, requires that DOE justify the science's merit and provide greater transparency if climate science work is intentionally duplicated.

This provision in the America COMPETES Act is simply good governance and is more important now than ever. The Obama administration has unapologetically pushed forward a politicized climate agenda through the Federal Government, prioritizing climate change research above all else. Better transparency can help prevent wasteful spending and prioritize the most valuable research.

H.R. 1806 authorizes the Office of Science within the Department of Energy to support basic research in the physical sciences, including research on Earth's atmosphere. By including these good government measures, the America COMPETES Act gives Congress appropriate oversight, funds valuable research, but does not provide a blank check for the President's climate agenda.

This amendment would strike these important accountability measures from the America COMPETES Act research. For that reason, I oppose the amendment and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

[Time: 17:15]

5:14 PM EDT

Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-TX 30th

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, it is not surprising that the Biological and Environmental Research program at DOE is targeted with harmful provisions in this bill. It is targeted because the program is a leader in advancing our understanding of the causes and impacts of climate change.

Hiding our heads in the sand will not solve anything, and it certainly won't stop the Earth from warming. Allowing partisan politics to skew the scientific understanding of climate change is cynical and shortsighted.

It is especially cynical considering that in the majority's own bill, they state that climate change is happening. They just had to take the statement out that it is caused by human beings.

The gentleman from California's amendment would simply strike those harmful provisions so that scientists supported by BER can continue their important work without political interference.

I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

5:14 PM EDT

Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-TX 30th

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, it is not surprising that the Biological and Environmental Research program at DOE is targeted with harmful provisions in this bill. It is targeted because the program is a leader in advancing our understanding of the causes and impacts of climate change.

Hiding our heads in the sand will not solve anything, and it certainly won't stop the Earth from warming. Allowing partisan politics to skew the scientific understanding of climate change is cynical and shortsighted.

It is especially cynical considering that in the majority's own bill, they state that climate change is happening. They just had to take the statement out that it is caused by human beings.

The gentleman from California's amendment would simply strike those harmful provisions so that scientists supported by BER can continue their important work without political interference.

I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

5:14 PM EDT

Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-TX 30th

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, it is not surprising that the Biological and Environmental Research program at DOE is targeted with harmful provisions in this bill. It is targeted because the program is a leader in advancing our understanding of the causes and impacts of climate change.

Hiding our heads in the sand will not solve anything, and it certainly won't stop the Earth from warming. Allowing partisan politics to skew the scientific understanding of climate change is cynical and shortsighted.

It is especially cynical considering that in the majority's own bill, they state that climate change is happening. They just had to take the statement out that it is caused by human beings.

The gentleman from California's amendment would simply strike those harmful provisions so that scientists supported by BER can continue their important work without political interference.

I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

5:14 PM EDT

Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-TX 30th

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, it is not surprising that the Biological and Environmental Research program at DOE is targeted with harmful provisions in this bill. It is targeted because the program is a leader in advancing our understanding of the causes and impacts of climate change.

Hiding our heads in the sand will not solve anything, and it certainly won't stop the Earth from warming. Allowing partisan politics to skew the scientific understanding of climate change is cynical and shortsighted.

It is especially cynical considering that in the majority's own bill, they state that climate change is happening. They just had to take the statement out that it is caused by human beings.

The gentleman from California's amendment would simply strike those harmful provisions so that scientists supported by BER can continue their important work without political interference.

I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

5:15 PM EDT

Alan Lowenthal, D-CA 47th

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I repeat: duplication is good science. Let me repeat that: duplication is good science.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Lowenthal amendment to maintain the Department of Energy's ability to select scientific projects based upon scientific merit, that support the mission of the Department of Energy and the broader energy security of our country.

I yield back the balance of my time.

5:16 PM EDT

Lamar S. Smith, R-TX 21st

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike good government accountability measures within the COMPETES bill that require DOE's Office of Science to prioritize biological systems and genomic science. It would also strike reforms included in the America COMPETES Act that prevent duplication of research, which saves taxpayer dollars.

I encourage Members to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal).

The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.

5:16 PM EDT

Lamar S. Smith, R-TX 21st

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike good government accountability measures within the COMPETES bill that require DOE's Office of Science to prioritize biological systems and genomic science. It would also strike reforms included in the America COMPETES Act that prevent duplication of research, which saves taxpayer dollars.

I encourage Members to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal).

The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.

5:16 PM EDT

Alan Lowenthal, D-CA 47th

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California will be postponed.

AMENDMENT NO. 9 OFFERED BY MR.

GRAYSON

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 printed in part A of House Report 114-120.