Marshall Sanford: “I rise not so much in opposition to this authorization, but frankly against the appropriation which will come later this…”

“I rise not so much in opposition to this authorization, but frankly against the appropriation which will come later this week, because it seems to me that last year on this House floor, when the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) offered an amendment to cut $174,000 out of the bill which at that time would have studied the reasons people do not run for elected office, of which I assume there are many. Basically what they are trying to signal to the Science Foundation was that we need a tighter grip on the way they spend money; that when people back home think about spending a dollar, they really run through a lot of priorities, and they run through a lot of interests that they have before they decide on actually spending that dollar, and that this organization ought to do the same. And so I rise to, in essence, follow up on what they tried to do last year in sending a message on the importance of sharpening a pencil, because when I look at the grants that have come since then, and there are a list of several that have come since then; I look here at, as my colleagues know, $210,000 to study ATMs, I look at $17,000 to study interactive video-on-demand services for popular videos, I look at $220,000 to look at why women smile more than men, and I guess there are many reasons there.”