[House Report 114-412]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
114th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 114-412
======================================================================
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST ACT
_______
February 2, 2016.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Smith of Texas, from the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 3293]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 3293) to provide for greater
accountability in Federal funding for scientific research, to
promote the progress of science in the United States that
serves that national interest, having considered the same,
reports favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that
the bill do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Committee Statement and Views.................................... 2
Section-by-Section............................................... 2
Explanation of Amendments........................................ 3
Committee Consideration.......................................... 3
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch..................... 3
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the
Committee...................................................... 3
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............ 3
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 4
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings.............................. 4
Federal Advisory Committee Act................................... 4
Unfunded Mandate Statement....................................... 4
Earmark Identification........................................... 4
Committee Estimate............................................... 4
Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate... 4
Minority Views................................................... 6
Committee Statement and Views
PURPOSE AND SUMMARY
H.R. 3293, the Scientific Research in the National Interest
Act, is sponsored by Representative Lamar Smith, Chairman of
the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee. The purpose
of the bill is to provide for greater accountability in Federal
funding for scientific research at the National Science
Foundation and to promote the progress of science in the United
States that serves the national interest.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
Throughout its history, the NSF has played an integral role
in funding breakthrough discoveries in fields as diverse as
mathematics, physics, chemistry, computer science, engineering
and biology. However, the Committee has expressed concern that
the NSF has approved a number of grants for which the
scientific merits and national interest are questionable, or at
least not obvious.
The NSF has recognized the need for increased transparency
and accountability and in January 2015 established a policy
requiring clear, non-technical explanations of each research
grant and an explanation of how it supports the national
interest. H.R. 3293 makes that commitment permanent and
explicit.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
On May 20, 2015, the House of Representatives passed H.R.
1806, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015 by a
vote of 217-205, which included the text of H.R. 3293 as
section 106. On October 8, 2015, the House Science, Space and
Technology Committee passed H.R. 3293 by voice vote.
COMMITTEE VIEWS
The Committee believes that H.R. 3293 is consistent with
the policy announced by the NSF in January 2015, emphasizing
that the title and abstract for each funded grant should act as
the public justification for NSF funding.
The Committee recognizes the NSF's commitment to improving
transparency, and believes that H.R. 3293 further ensures that
NSF research funding is accountable to the American taxpayer by
requiring that the NSF's public announcement of a grant award
be accompanied by a non-technical explanation of the project's
scientific merits and how it serves the national interest
according to specific criteria.
The Committee believes that H.R. 3293 does not change the
Foundation's merit review process, as the bill states:
``Nothing in this section shall be construed as altering the
Foundation's intellectual merit or broader impacts criteria for
evaluating grant applications.''
Section-by-Section
Section 1. Short title
Scientific Research in the National Interest Act
Section 2. Greater accountability in Federal funding for research
This section requires that the National Science Foundation
make a determination that every research grant or cooperative
agreement is worthy of Federal funding and is in the national
interest as indicated by having the potential to achieve:
promotion of the progress of science for the United States;
increased economic competitiveness in the United States;
advancement of the health and welfare of the American public;
development of an American STEM workforce that is globally
competitive; increased public scientific literacy and public
engagement with science and technology in the United States;
increased partnerships between academia and industry in the
United States; or support for the national defense of the
United States.
This section requires that the public announcement of each
award of Federal funding must include a written justification
from the responsible Foundation official as to how a grant or
cooperative agreement meets the accountability requirements.
This section also instructs that nothing in the section
shall be misconstrued as altering the Foundation's intellectual
merit or broader impacts criteria for evaluating grant
applications.
Explanation of Amendments
No amendments were adopted.
Committee Consideration
On October 8, 2015, the Committee met in open session and
ordered reported favorably the bill, H.R. 3293, by voice vote,
a quorum being present.
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch
Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104-1 requires a
description of the application of this bill to the legislative
branch where the bill relates to the terms and conditions of
employment or access to public services and accommodations.
This bill requires that the National Science Foundation make a
determination that every research grant or cooperative
agreement is worthy of Federal funding and is in the national
interest. As such this bill does not relate to employment or
access to public services and accommodations.
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause
(2)(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the Committee's oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the descriptive portions of
this report.
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives
H.R. 3293, the Scientific Research in the National Interest
Act, would provide for greater accountability in Federal
funding for scientific research at the National Science
Foundation and promote the progress of science in the United
States that serves the national interest.
Duplication of Federal Programs
No provision of H.R. 3293 establishes or reauthorizes a
program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of
another Federal program, a program that was included in any
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance.
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings
The Committee estimates that enacting H.R. 3293 does not
direct the completion of any specific rule makings within the
meaning of 5 U.S.C. 551.
Federal Advisory Committee Act
The Committee finds that the legislation does not establish
or authorize the establishment of an advisory committee within
the definition of 5 U.S.C. App., Section 5(b).
Unfunded Mandate Statement
Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded
Mandate Reform Act, P.L. 104-4) requires a statement as to
whether the provisions of the reported include unfunded
mandates. In compliance with this requirement the Committee has
received a letter from the Congressional Budget Office included
herein.
Earmark Identification
H.R. 3293 does not include any congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in
clause 9 of rule XXI.
Committee Estimate
Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the
Committee of the costs that would be incurred in carrying out
H.R. 3293. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) of that rule provides
that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has
included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the
bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act.
Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect
to requirements of clause (3)(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received
the following cost estimate for H.R. 3293 from the Director of
Congressional Budget Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, November 17, 2015.
Hon. Lamar Smith,
Chairman, Committee on Science, Space and Technology,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3293, the
Scientific Research in the National Interest Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Marin
Burnett.
Sincerely,
Keith Hall.
Enclosure.
H.R. 3293--Scientific Research in the National Interest Act
H.R. 3293 would require that new National Science
Foundation (NSF) grants advance the national interest, as
defined in the bill, before funding may be awarded by the
agency. Examples of advancing the national interest would
include increasing economic competitiveness, advancing the
health and welfare of the public, or supporting the national
defense of the United States. Under the legislation, NSF also
would be required to make a public announcement of each award
of federal funding and explain how it would advance those
interests.
The legislation would not change NSF's authority to make
grants and, based on information from NSF, CBO expects that
explaining how the agency's grants advance the national
interest would not increase the foundation's administrative
expenses.
Enacting H.R. 3293 would not affect direct spending or
revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. CBO
estimates that enacting H.R. 3293 would not increase net direct
spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive
10-year periods beginning in 2026.
H.R. 3293 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Marin Burnett.
The estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
MINORITY VIEWS
H.R. 3293 continues the Majority's efforts to impose a
layer of political review on NSF's gold-standard merit-review
system. Many in the Majority have been clear in their own
belief that many grants that have successfully passed merit-
review are not worthy of federal funding, according to each of
their own subjective definitions of ``worthy.'' And that
determination most often seems to be based on how silly the
title of a research grant seems to such Members.
As the Ranking Democratic Member of the Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, I feel it is not our job nor
our intent to defend every NSF grant. Most Members of Congress
lack the relevant expertise to fairly evaluate the merits or
value of any particular grant. We cannot state with certainty
that every one of the 11,000 NSF grants awarded each year is
worthy by any and all definitions, and, there may be room for
debate on a few of those 11,000. However, the appropriate forum
for that debate is the NSF's world renowned, and much
replicated merit-review process, not the halls of Congress. If
we do not trust the Nation's scientific experts to make that
judgment on whether a scientific grant is worthy of funding or
not, then who are we to trust? The clear intent of this bill is
to change how NSF makes funding decisions, according to what
some Majority Members believe should or shouldn't be funded.
I also remain concerned that another, perhaps unintended
consequence, of this bill will be to inhibit high-risk, high-
reward research in all fields. We've heard from many scientists
who are concerned that NSF, because of political pressures and
budget constraints, is already pushing scientists to justify
everything according to short-term return. This will
necessarily reduce the ability of NSF and U.S. scientists to
conduct truly transformative research. Whatever pressure NSF
may already feel from this Committee and others in Congress,
this bill only reinforces that pressure many-fold. The message
this bill is sending to every single scientist applying for NSF
funding, every single scientist sitting on a review panel is,
don't take risks, because anything you do that invites any
attention from Congress will lead to significant and undeserved
harassment, and may even endanger your career. What this bill
may really do is squelch creativity, risk-taking, critical
thinking, and the open exchange of ideas.
Further, the Majority is pushing this agenda in the
complete absence of any actual problem being identified with
NSF's current policy, with which this bill is supposedly
aligned. If the existing policy is working, we question the
need to move forward with the bill. We are unaware of any
scientific society, research university, or member of the
National Science Board that has recommended the language in
this bill, and most have expressed concerns. Yet again, this
Committee, under Republican leadership, is ignoring the
scientific community we are supposedly here to support.
In staff-level discussions leading up to the markup,
Democratic Members made an offer of a simple 31-word addition
to the bill which would have made this bill palatable. One
change would have allowed the ``national interest'' review to
occur at the portfolio level rather than at the individual
grant level. The notion that every single narrowly focused, and
sometimes esoteric research project must, by itself, be
justified by a ``national interest'' criterion, is antithetical
to how basic research works. Another change would have
connected the requirement for every grant to be certified as
``worthy of federal funding'' directly to the NSF merit-review
process, rather than leaving it in the hands of Congress to be
the final arbiter of what grants are or are not ``worthy.''
Both changes were unfortunately rejected by the Majority. Such
a simple 31-word addition to the bill would have sent a clear
signal to the scientific community that it is not the intent of
this Committee to politicize grant-making at NSF. The rejection
of such an addition lays bare the true intent of the Majority.
I would be remiss not to remind our colleagues and the
American public that many grants that were once mocked in the
halls of Congress, or that might otherwise have been deemed
``silly'' or ``unworthy of federal funding'' led eventually to
tremendous economic, health, national security, and/or other
benefits for our nation. Here are few such examples:
In 1955, the U.S. Department of Agriculture
funded a study named, ``The Sex Life of the
Screwworm.'' This grant was mocked on the Senate floor
as an example of government waste, and instigated the
creation of a ``Golden Fleece Award.'' Screwworms feed
on living tissue, often killing the host, and were a
huge menace in the cattle industry. The initial grant
was for $250,000. The outcome of that grant saved the
cattle industry $20 billion in the U.S. alone,
resulting in a 5 percent reduction in the price of
beef. The Senator who mocked the grant later
apologized.
In the early 1960's NSF and NIH funded a
marine biologist to study why jellyfish glow green, a
topic that would surely have caught the attention of
our Majority as being ``unworthy'' of federal funding.
When this biologist, who was just following his
scientific curiosity, isolated the green fluorescent
protein from jellyfish in 1962, neither he nor his
funders had any idea that his work would one day lead
to advances in genetics, cell biology, developmental
biology, and neurobiology, to a better understanding of
cancer, brain diseases such as Alzheimer's, and other
human diseases, and methods used widely by the
pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries. In 2008,
this work won a Nobel Prize.
In 2006, NSF funded a $147,000 study named,
``Accuracy in the Cross-Cultural Understanding of
Others' Emotions.'' In 2007, this grant was mocked on
the House Floor as an example of government waste. In
notable contrast, the Department of Defense and the
Department of Homeland Security were both keenly
interested in this research because of its application
to soldiers operating among potentially hostile foreign
populations, and to Transportation Security agents
trying to detect any potential terrorists among
travelers coming from all over the world. The scientist
behind this work has been invited to speak to officials
at both agencies many times.
Regarding these and many other ``silly science'' examples,
who's laughing now? The whole idea of basic research is that
the potential outcomes are largely unknown and often
unpredictable. The idea is that we fund our greatest scientific
minds to follow their curiosity, often to paths unknown, and
that in the aggregate, our investment will pay off
exponentially. That promise has become reality ever since the
federal government began investing heavily in academic research
at the end of WWII.
Democratic Members agree entirely with the requirement that
NSF publish more clearly written abstracts of its funded work
in order to better communicate to the public how taxpayer
dollars are being spent. The NSF should be fully transparent in
what it funds. The good news is that anyone can already go to
NSF's website to read about every single one of the 11,000
awards made every year. That has been the case for many years.
And, in recent years, NSF has made significant progress toward
making sure all of those 11,000 abstracts are written clearly,
with the general public in mind. To the extent that the bill
requires clearly written abstracts, we can agree. However, this
is where the agreement with the Majority ends. I, along with
many Democratic Members of this Committee, simply cannot
support an effort that politicizes NSF funded science, and
undermines the very notion of basic research.
Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Ranking Minority Member.
[all]