Peter Visclosky: “I also would rise in reluctant opposition to the gentleman's amendment. As a resident of the neighboring State, I…”

“I also would rise in reluctant opposition to the gentleman's amendment. As a resident of the neighboring State, I realize all of the great scientific research that is done in the State of Illinois alone at some of our wonderful Federal facilities. There is no question that we need to invest in the science account, as evidenced by the fact it is in this bill. Again, we had a very difficult allocation. Science is cut by $72,203,000. But, unfortunately, I do think the gentleman's amendment is counterproductive in that he, because of the budget rules, needs a $30 million cut from renewable research to gain a $15 million add for scientific research. Given the constraints we face, I think that's a bad bargain and we ought to leave the $30 million right where it is and have that aptly applied. With that, I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren). The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it.”