|5:49 PM EDT||
Daniel Lipinski, D-IL 3rd
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank Ms. Johnson for yielding.
I am proud to rise in support of Ms. Johnson's amendment in the nature of a substitute, and I am also proud to cosponsor H.R. 1898, which contains the same language, because this alternative is much more in keeping with the principles of the original America COMPETES Act.
Mr. Chairman, in 2007, I served on the conference committee that worked out the House-Senate compromise on the original COMPETES bill. In 2010, I wrote the NSF title on the reauthorization. These are two of my proudest moments in Congress because those were bipartisan bills that set us on a path to continue leading the world in scientific research and innovation for the next generation.
Sadly, in recent years, we have let that progress stall. Make no mistake, other nations are continuing to invest and are continuing to innovate. If we don't come together to send a strong message and provide strong support for scientific research, America will no longer be able to compete.
The COMPETES bill is an investment bill. I understand the threat of our enormous Federal debt; but, without the types of investments that are made in the COMPETES bill, we will not promote the economic growth that we need to end our deficits and pay down our debt.
Ranking Member Johnson's alternative makes those investments. Unlike the base bill, it does not make drastic cuts to Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, which promotes and funds research and development of advanced energy technologies.
It does not make drastic cuts to the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy that invests in high-risk, high-value research and development in the fields of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. It doesn't cut the geosciences or make a more than 50 percent cut to research in the social, behavioral, and economic sciences.
Some might think that last one is warranted; but, in the Science Committee, we are constantly hearing from witnesses about how social science is vital to the work going on in other fields. Members of Congress have frequently relied on spectrum auctions, developed by NSF social science research, to raise billions of dollars.
Social science is perhaps the most critical component to preventing cyber crimes. Considering that the majority of all cyber breaches occur because of social factors, like using easy-to-guess passwords or clicking on a link in a phishing attack, we should want to increase funding in these areas.
Mr. Chairman, Ms. Johnson's amendment provides robust support in all of these areas. I agree that the chairman's bill has gotten better and things have been added to the bill which have made it a better bill, but still, I think there is no question that Ms. Johnson's
substitute is a much better bill for making the types of investments we need in scientific research right now if we want to make sure that America still competes. This is critical to the future of our country; this is critical to innovation.
I urge my colleagues to support it.