On the recordJune 2, 2015
I thank my friend for yielding and for his work on the Appropriations Committee. I want to say that, Mr. Chairman, I understand the constraints that the chairman is working under, and I appreciate his work on those items that were mentioned by Ranking Member Fattah and other Members on this side. I rise in opposition to this bill because it fails to fund scientific research at levels we need to spur innovation and remain competitive as a Nation. In particular, I want to call attention to report language in the bill that will result in cuts to the social sciences and geosciences of over $250 million. The NSF is the largest single source of funding for basing research in our country in a variety of fields, and that is especially true for the social sciences. Some will say these cuts are needed to prioritize research in other areas, but this approach of limiting funding for social science is misguided for several reasons. First, other areas of research are already heavily prioritized at the NSF. In fiscal year 2015, the NSF will spend only 3.7 percent of its budget on social science research--clearly not an outsized priority. This is especially true when you consider that social science research saves lives and money. It was NSF-funded social science research that developed the kidney transplant program that has led to thousands of successful donor-patient pairings that had not been possible before.…





