the Senator from Michigan worked so hard to craft a series of provisions that were included in this bill. Unfortunately, the conference agreement does not include many of the provisions the Senator cared most about concerning access to information by Congress in order to ensure effective congressional oversight. I think the loss of those provisions is unfortunate. On the Senate side, they had bipartisan support. I think it reflects a historic tension between Congress and the executive branch when it comes to oversight and the inadequate sharing of information with Congress. This has been a problem in previous administrations, and it has continued to this day. So the Senator is correct that this objection did not originate with any of the Senate conferees, either Republican or Democrat, and it did reflect the views of the executive branch. I want to make it clear that regardless of whether we have had a Democratic President or a Republican President, that tension has existed over decades.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the lack of provisions for congressional oversight in a bill.
Share
More from Susan Collins
“It’s appalling to me that some of the rhetoric is coming from public officials on both sides of the aisle who should know better than to levy personal and political attacks against the judiciary and the court specifically,” Collins said.
I took particular issue with the provision that would allow political appointees to review grant proposals, noting that it would undermine the goal of awarding funds 'based on scientific merit and value, rather than political ideology.'
It would undermine the goal of awarding funds based on scientific merit and value, rather than political ideology.
Senator Collins asked the OMB to withdraw parts of the rule that would unduly burden scientific and biomedical research and small communities.





