Presidential candidates snatch the most attention during election seasons, and science usually gets scant mention. Science and technology, however, underpin some of the biggest problems facing the U.S., which is why Scientific American partnered with ScienceDebate.org to ask Pres. Barack Obama and former Gov. Mitt Romney to talk about 14 top challenges facing the country that are ultimately rooted in science.
But even the most science-savvy chief executive needs scientifically literate partners in Congress to implement sound initiatives. After all, the nation's laws ultimately get debated and passed on the floors of the House of Representatives and Senate. Because most of Congress's legislative work occurs within committees, we thought it made sense to find out how the top-ranking members of those committees approach issues that have some sort of foundation in science.
We chose eight of the original 14 questions that seemed to be most clearly legislative matters. Next we identified about a dozen congressional committees (including Appropriations and Budget) and two subcommittees that were likely to pay the largest roles on these issues. We then reached out to the committee chair and ranking member of these committees as well as the House and Senate majority and minority leaders. Finally, we did not contact representatives who were retiring.
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
Our targeted survey produced a 28 percent response rate, which we think is pretty good for our first effort at surveying the legislative leadership on science. Naturally, we would like it to be higher.
Of the 32 congressional leaders contacted, nine responded with either complete or partial answers, six declined our requests and 17 never got back to us, despite repeated e-mail and telephone requests. Of the congressional members who responded, two are Republicans and seven are Democrats.
The responders typically took the opportunity to point out their past legislative efforts as well as support or undermine current proposals from others. If they offered possible solutions, outlines were tentative. Some responses, including Sen. Jay Rockefeller's on the government's role in managing the Internet, are involved and lengthy. At the other end of the spectrum, Rep. John Mica kept his brief: for example, he answered one question in 10 words by pointing out that innovations in technology can solve freshwater problems.
All nine acknowledged climate change. Rep. Ralph Hall, however, prevaricated about the extent of humans' influence—citing great debate and uncertainty among experts.
We turned to Web sites and past statements made by the nonresponders to fill in the gaps. For example, we used public statements of the Senate majority and minority leaders as well as the speaker of the House to cobble together approximate positions. For the remaining legislative leaders in science- and technology-related policy, we ask for your help. If you find any public statement they have made addressing any of the questions, shoot an e-mail to submit@sciam.com with a link to the source.
We sent out initial requests in late July and early August. Each congressional member received at least six e-mails and six phone calls to their press offices to remind them that we were seeking written responses. The party leaders of the House and Senate—Speaker of the House John Boehner, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell—each received at least eight e-mails and six phone calls.
By September 30 nine members of Congress had sent answers and six officials declined to address the questions; the remaining 17 have not responded at the time of this writing. The door is still open: If any of the silent legislators send replies, we will post their responses.
We have responses to all eight questions from Reps. Henry Waxman (Committee on Energy and Commerce), Chris Van Hollen (Committee on the Budget), Ralph Hall (Committee on Science, Space and Technology), Timothy Bishop (Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment) and John Mica (Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure); Senators who responded were Jay Rockefeller (Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation), Tom Harkin (Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions) and Dianne Feinstein (Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development). House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi answered five of the eight questions.
The following legislators declined to participate: Sens. Michael Enzi (Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions) and Jeff Sessions (Committee on the Budget) as well as Speaker of the House John Boehner and Rep. Collin Peterson (Committee on Agriculture). Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's press secretary informed SA that the senator ultimately did not have time to get to the questions before the deadline. Sen. Ron Wyden's press team wrote that the member of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, has a policy not to respond to survey questions.
The remaining elected officials did not respond: from the House, Frank Lucas (Committee on Agriculture), Scott Garrett (Committee on the Budget), Fred Upton (Committee on Energy and Commerce), Edward J. Markey and Doc Hastings (both on the Committee on Natural Resources), Eddie Bernice Johnson (Committee on Science, Space and Technology), Bob Gibbs (Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment) and Nick Rahall (Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure); from the Senate, Pat Roberts and Debbie Stabenow (both on the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry), Patty Murray (Committee on the Budget), Jim DeMint (Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation), Lisa Murkowski (Committee on Energy and Natural Resources), James Inhofe and Barbara Boxer (both on the Committee on Environment and Public Works), Harry Reid (majority leader) and Lamar Alexander (Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development).
We posted the responses in full and we welcome your analysis in the comments. Do congressional leaders weigh science when forming their policies? How do they plan to fund and regulate research? We are not asking politicians to be scientists, but we are asking them to consider the evidence when shaping U.S. science policy for the future.
Read the presidential candidates’ answers to all 14 questions in full at either ScienceDebate.org or Scientific American Online
Election 2012 button used under Creative Commons license BY 2.0.
Innovation and the Economy.Science and technology have been responsible for over half of the growth of the U.S. economy since WWII, when the federal government first prioritized peacetime science mobilization. But several recent reports question America's continued leadership in these vital areas. What policies will best ensure that America remains a world leader in innovation?
Representative Timothy Bishop, New York State–1 (D) and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, writes:
In order for the U.S. to remain competitive in the 21st Century, we must continue to support policies that invest in basic research encourage entrepreneurship, and bolster education for the next generation.
I am a strong supporter of research programs like those found at our Department of Energy national labs. Brookhaven National Lab, in my district not only has made monumental scientific discoveries, but has also been the breeding ground for hundreds of innovations that have led to economic gains for business and entrepreneurs, and which have improved the quality of life for millions of Americans. Similarly, investments in research through the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy, to name a few, have resulted in billions of dollars in economic activity, created thousands of jobs, and help position the U.S. to maintain its global leadership in innovation.
A highly-skilled workforce is essential to maintaining American's role as a leader in innovation and economic growth. It is critical to support investments in education to ensure our next generation has the skills and knowledge necessary to reach their goals. One of the most important tools to prepare our youth for the challenges of tomorrow is science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education. As a member of the Education & Workforce committee, I strongly oppose recent efforts to reduce federal funding in these areas, and I am the author of H.R. 258, the STEM Master Teacher Corps Act, which would award competitive grants to school districts or states to partner with colleges and universities or nonprofit organizations to establish a program which will develop, support and retain exceptional teachers in the STEM disciplines.
Representative John Boehner, Ohio–8 (R) and Speaker of the House, declined to respond to the science eight questions that we asked. As of press time we have not found public statements that pertain to this question.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, California (D) and chair of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, writes:
California is home to the transformative innovation of Silicon Valley, home to more than 100 universities and colleges, more than a quarter of U.S. venture capital investment and six of the top 10 patent-producing U.S. cities. Our high-tech industry is critical to the growth of the global economy. A top priority for me is my 'patent box' legislation to make the United States more attractive for manufacturing companies, including many in Silicon Valley. Under the bill, companies that domestically manufacture products based on U.S. patents will pay a lower corporate tax rate—15 percent compared to the usual 35 percent. This bill is not only good for U.S. manufacturers, it will serve a powerful role as a catalyst for innovation.
Representative Ralph Hall, Texas–4 (R) and chair of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology, writes:
Science and technology remain essential factors in the strength and growth of the U.S. economy. Basic research has long been recognized by expert organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences as key to driving innovation and ensuring long-term economic growth. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has focused much of its R&D spending—particularly in areas such as energy—on late-stage technology development and commercialization activities with poor track records. Basic research should be restored as the top Federal R&D investment priority.
Additionally, it's important to recognize that people innovate, not governments. Public policies that encourage rather than stifle innovative business practices and permit rather than inhibit university and industry scientists in furthering their research are essential to ensuring that the U.S. remains a leader in innovation and are key to our future economic growth. U.S. entrepreneurs are currently hindered by the high-tax and heavy-handed regulatory and economic policies pursued by President Obama, greatly limiting private-sector risk-taking and innovation. We need a competitive and predictable corporate tax structure to allow our innovative companies to compete globally; we must reduce the regulatory costs and federal red tape imposed on U.S. employers; and we must continue to seek strong and secure trading relationships to allow the opening of new markets for our innovators. We must return to an economic environment that rewards, not punishes, our best and brightest for pursuing transformative ideas.
Senator Tom Harkin, Iowa (D) and chair of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, writes:
For decades, one of the defining features of the American economy has been the innovative and creative spirit of American entrepreneurs and researchers. What is often overlooked, however, is that across our history, an often visionary Federal government has funded and spearheaded initiatives that have expanded private commerce, given birth to countless inventions and new industries, and created tens of millions of jobs. For instance, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency invented the Internet, researchers at NASA have made dozens of breakthroughs, including the computer microchip and CAT scanner technology, and over 80 Nobel Prizes have been awarded for National Institutes of Health supported research.
These innovations have revolutionized the way the world does business, dramatically increasing productivity and creating untold millions of jobs. These are exactly the types of investments we need to continue to make because they form the backbone of an innovative, strong, successful economy. Finally, because much of our private sector R&D comes from manufacturing firms, we need to do more to rebuild our manufacturing base, particularly through programs like President Obama's proposed National Network for Manufacturing Innovation.
Senator Mitch McConnell, Kentucky (R) and Senate minority leader, did not respond to the eight science questions by press time. The Senator has spoken about the importance of innovation to the economy in the past. On April 20, 2007 he spoke on the Senate floor regarding the America COMPETES Act. An excerpt of the U.S. Fed News services transcription of the statement follows:
Mr. President, America has led the world in innovation for over a century. From the light bulb to the airplane to the integrated circuit, America has given the world the tools to live happier, easier, and more productive lives.
Now the rest of the world is beginning to catch up. Nations like China and India are seeing the benefits of brainpower and what it can do to remake their economies.
The America COMPETES Act is the best way to keep more of the jobs of the 21st Century right here in America, and the best way to ensure that our children have the skills to keep America at the forefront of innovation and discovery.
Representative John Mica, Florida–7 (R) and chair of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, writes:
To continue America's role in innovation and economic leadership, we should remove government obstacles to innovation, streamline and improve the patent process and continue to partner in research and development. The U.S. should also improve our education system, especially by making science, technology, engineering and math more attractive for students and by rewarding quality teachers.
Representative Nancy Pelosi, California–8 (D) and House minority leader, writes:
Before I became Speaker of the House in 2007, we listened to the experts who contributed to the National Academies of Science's report Rising Above the Gathering Storm, and we heard from scientific leaders at universities and innovative entrepreneurs across the country. We took their advice and worked with Congressional leaders to spearhead our Innovation Agenda: enact the America COMPETES Act, to help ensure our nation's global economic competitiveness for generations to come—through a new emphasis on math, science, engineering, and technology education, and a renewed commitment to basic research. That bill increased funding for the National Institute of Science and Technology, National Science Foundation, and the Department of Energy. It trained more of our students in math, science, engineering, and technology, to turn ideas into innovative technologies to boost our economy and create good American jobs. It created or expanded many competitive, merit-based grants and fellowships. It increased manufacturing research and education and created a STEM Training Grant program to increase the number of teachers in those fields. It funded regional innovation clusters and science and research parks. Our reauthorization of the bill in 2010 built on those successes and went further, allowing any federal agency to come up with prize competitions.
Democrats know that these investments have a multiplier effect on private investment. More must be done, but the progress we've already made is at risk. Since 2011, we've seen the new House Majority cut funding of these programs. The Ryan budget passed this year:
- Cuts investments in R&D, science, and technology – which are needed to spark growth and create 21st century jobs – by more than $100 billion over the next decade.
- Cuts the number of National Science Foundation grants by over 11,000 over the next 10 years, eliminating support for over 13,000 researchers, students and teachers in 2014 alone.
- Cuts the number of new NIH grants for medical research by over 16,000 over the next decade.
Senator Harry Reid, Nevada (D) and Senate majority leader, did not respond to the eight science questions by press time. The Senator's website states his position on innovation and technology and a section is excerpted below:
Technology has transformed our economy over the last ten years. have been working hard to strengthen Nevada's high-technology sector by providing our students with the skills they need to thrive in high-technology industries and by closing the digital divide. I am proud to have recently been named the Information Technology Industry Council's High Tech Legislator of the Year and a recipient of TechNet's Founders Circle Award for my work in expanding America's and Nevada's innovation economy. In addition, I have been an ardent supporter of the research and development tax credit and have offered legislation to make it permanent. Developers of emerging technologies often need unique incentives in order to make new technologies commercially viable. I remain committed to maintaining our competitiveness and keeping our country at the forefront of technology and innovation.
Senator Jay Rockefeller, West Virginia (D) and chair of the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, writes:
It is widely acknowledged that Federal investment in science and technology contributes to economic growth and sustained prosperity. The United States has historically led in global research and development, but other countries—notably China—are recognizing the correlation between increased funding and technological innovation. The United States now ranks eighth when research and development expenditures are calculated as a fraction of a nation's Gross Domestic Product. We have not lost our position as a global leader in science and technology innovation, but even the best policies will not lead to continued advancements and breakthroughs without financial commitments to the fields of science and technology from our Federal and state governments.
Luckily, we already have a comprehensive assessment of the standing of investment and productivity from which to develop policy. In 2005, the National Academy of Sciences evaluated U.S. performance in science and technology investment. Recommendations from that study informed the policy in the America COMPETES Act of 2007 and the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. Both Acts called for a doubling of the Federal investments in basic research at the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Department of Energy's Office of Science to maintain the United States' position at the forefront of global innovation. But subsequent budget requests from two administrations, annual appropriations, and legislation stretched out that doubling trajectory from seven years to anywhere from 11 to more than 18 years. Both parties have spared these areas from more significant funding cuts, but our government reduces funding and investment in proven economic drivers without consideration of the consequences.
Certainly the financial crisis and the fallout from blindly slashing agency budgets to reduce the deficit have contributed to the current political climate surrounding investment. But we must realize that forward-thinking policy and investments lead to economic prosperity that, in turn, supports greater breakthroughs in innovation. I will continue to push for science and technology research and education because they put our economic recovery on a stronger course; however, we can all do more to publicize the tangible benefits that greater investment in science and technology has on our global competitiveness.
Representative Chris Van Hollen, Maryland–8 (D) and ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, writes:
It is imperative that the United States lead the world in innovation in the 21st century. Our standard of living, job opportunities for our citizens, lifesaving cures and treatments for our loved ones, and a healthy environment for all depend on it. In my judgment, that kind of leadership will require a comprehensive and sustained effort from both our public and private sectors – including a robust investment in education (especially the STEM fields), a federal commitment to research and development, a renewed emphasis on next generation manufacturing, translating federally funded breakthroughs to commercial applications in the private sector, an immigration policy that enables us to recruit and retain the best and brightest scientists from around the world, and appropriate tax, regulatory, and legal policy.
Representative Henry Waxman, California–30 (D) and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, writes:
Technological innovation is key for America to compete and win in an increasingly global economy. The federal government has played a critical role in fostering science and technological innovation, particularly in the latter half of the twentieth century, and the American people and our economy have benefited tremendously from those public investments.
The federal government has many tools to promote scientific and technological progress, and we should be deploying all of them to boost innovation in key sectors. These tools include conducting or funding basic scientific research, supporting science education, and providing loans and other support for commercialization of innovative technologies. We can also use innovative mechanisms to stimulate innovation, such as offering prizes for specified technological breakthroughs and using energy savings performance contracts to support deployment of advanced energy efficiency technologies in buildings.
Regulatory policy can also drive tremendous innovation and produce huge economic benefits. For example, the Clean Air Act and other environmental laws contain "technology-forcing" provisions to drive the development of new technological solutions to pollution problems. When EPA sets limits for tailpipe emissions from vehicles, it considers what could be achieved with new technology, not just the technology already on the market. Another Clean Air Act provision requires large new stationary sources of pollution, such as power plants and factories, to meet pollution limits based on what can be achieved by the "best available control technology," which ensures continuous improvement over time. The Department of Energy's appliance efficiency standards have also driven significant technological innovations across a multitude of consumer and commercial products, with tremendous benefits to the economy.
Another way regulatory policy can spur innovation is through market-based incentives. Cap-and-trade programs, such as the Clean Air Act's acid rain program, are an excellent example of this approach. By putting a price on each ton of pollution emitted, the market sends a strong signal to innovate to achieve emission reductions through methods that cost less than the cost of emitting the pollution.
The benefits of regulatory incentives for innovation are evident in America's vibrant pollution control industry. The U.S. environmental technologies industry has grown dramatically with the implementation of the Clean Air Act and other environmental laws. In 2008, the industry generated approximately $300 billion in revenues and $44 billion in exports and supported nearly 1.7 million jobs. These include high-technology jobs in engineering and computer-aided design, as well as manufacturing and transportation.
Unfortunately, in this Congress, House Republicans have repeatedly opposed federal actions needed to support and drive scientific and technological innovation. Numerous votes on the House floor have targeted funding for research and development, loan programs for clean energy, and regulatory requirements that are based in science and will lead to technological development.
Climate Change. The Earth's climate is changing and there is concern about the potentially adverse effects of these changes on life on the planet. What is your position on cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and other policies proposed to address global climate change—and what steps can we take to improve our ability to tackle challenges like climate change that cross national boundaries?
Representative Timothy Bishop, New York State–1 (D) and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, writes:
Despite those who seek to deny its existence, scientific consensus is clear that the planet is indeed warming, and human activity is contributing to that trend. For coastal communities like Long Island, this means rising sea levels and more destructive storms.
I am proud of my efforts to address this pressing global challenge. I strongly support policies that promote clean energy, energy efficiency and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I also support policies that encourage the international community to face this challenge head on in partnership with the U.S. These efforts make sense economically, environmentally, and improve public health and our national security.
As a member of the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, I have worked closely with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to investigate options to combat sea level rise, which threatens our safety and property. I have secured millions of dollars in federal funds and promoted legislation to fortify our coastal areas and wetlands, which are our first line of defense against violent storms like hurricanes and nor'easters.
As Congress continues to consider policy options to combat the effects of sea level rise and climate change, one thing is clear: There is no silver bullet solution to this global problem. However, with an open and honest dialogue, I am confident that all parties can work together to identify solutions and opportunities to combat this threat. I will continue to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to put forth commonsense initiatives to reduce the effects of rising sea levels and climate change.
Representative John Boehner, Ohio–8 (R) and Speaker of the House, declined to respond to the eight science questions we asked. He has made statements about climate change in the past. During a July 2008 interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN he addressed climate change, the section of transcript, reproduced below, was accessed via Lexis Nexis:
REP. BOEHNER: I think that John McCain's position is not really very different than most Republicans.
BLITZER: You agree with him on global warming?
REP. BOEHNER: The fact is, is that we have had climate change. Clearly, humans have something to do with it, and we ought to begin reducing our CO2 emissions. But we need to do it in conjunction with other industrialized countries around the world. Otherwise, we're just going to ship our jobs to China and India and elsewhere. That is not what's in the best interest of the American people.
On April 19, 2009, Representative Boehner sat down with ABC's George Stephanopoulos for an interview. He was the House Minority Leader at the time. An excerpt of their conversation on climate change, accessed via the Federal News Service on Lexis Nexis, follows:
STEPHANOPOULUS: So what is the Republican answer to climate change? Is it a problem? Do you have a plan to address it?
REP. BOEHNER: George, we believe that our all-of-the-above energy strategy from last year continues to be the right approach on energy -- that we ought to make sure that we have new sources of energy, green energy, but we need nuclear energy, we need other types of alternatives, and, yes, we need American-made oil and gas.
STEPHANOPOULUS: But that doesn't do anything when it comes to emissions, sir.
REP. BOEHNER: When it comes to the issue of climate change, George, it's pretty clear that if we don't work with other industrialized nations around the world, what's going to happen is that we're going to ship millions of American jobs overseas. We have to deal with this in a responsible way.
STEPHANOPOULUS: So what is the responsible way? That's my question. What is the Republican plan to deal with carbon emissions, which every major scientific organization has said is contributing to climate change?
REP. BOEHNER: George, the idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide. Every cow in the world, you know, when they do what they do, you've got more carbon dioxide. And so I think it's clear --
STEPHANOPOULUS: So you don't believe that greenhouse gases are a problem in creating climate change?
REP. BOEHNER: -- we've had climate change over the last 100 years. Listen, it's clear we've had change in our climate. The question is how much does man have to do with it, and what is the proper way to deal with this? We can't do it alone as one nation. If we've got India, China and other industrialized countries not working with us, all we're going to do is ship millions of American jobs overseas.
STEPHANOPOULUS: But it sounds like from what you're saying that you don't believe that Republicans need to come up with a plan to control carbon emissions? You're suggesting it's not that big of a problem, even though the scientific consensus is that it has contributed to the climate change.REP. BOEHNER: I think it is -- I think it is an issue. The question is, what is the proper answer and the responsible answer?
STEPHANOPOULUS: And what is the answer? That's what I'm trying
to get at.REP. BOEHNER: George, I think everyone in America is looking for the proper answer. We don't want to raise taxes, $1.5 to $2 trillion like the administration is proposing, and we don't want to ship millions of American jobs overseas. And so we've got to find ways to work toward this solution to this problem without risking the future for our kids and grandkids.
STEPHANOPOULUS: So you are committed to coming up with a plan?
REP. BOEHNER: I think you'll see a plan from us. Just like you've seen a
plan from us on the stimulus bill and a better plan on the budget.
Representative Boehner released a statement regarding the Republican's strategy for a cleaner environment on April 21, 2009. He wrote:
Republicans are committed to working with the Administration and congressional Democrats to advance policies that promote clean air, clean water, and a healthy environment. Led by Rep. Mike Pence and his American Energy Solutions Group, House Republicans support an ‘all of the above’ strategy that will promote clean alternative technologies, encourage conservation, and increase environmentally-safe production of American energy. This strategy not only will lower energy costs and create good-paying jobs, it also will pave the way for a cleaner, healthier environment for our children and grandchildren.
This week, House Democrats are beginning their push for a cap-and-trade scheme that makes big promises, but amounts to little more than a national energy tax that will destroy countless jobs and raise energy prices on families and small businesses already struggling during this recession. Let’s be clear: Republicans and Democrats both support the efforts of employers and employees devoted to new, cleaner sources of energy, but cap-and-trade is not the answer. In fact, it will only make our problems worse, as proven in Europe, where cap-and-trade hurt the economy, drove up energy costs, and failed to cut carbon emissions at all. It’s time for Democrats in Congress and the Administration to reach out to Republicans and cooperate on an ‘all of the above’ plan to lower energy costs, create more jobs, and clean up our environment.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, California (D) and chair of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, writes:
I believe the long-term health of the planet depends on taking further action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The inability of Congress to address climate change is one of the great disappointments in my tenure, including the failure to enact cap-and-trade legislation that I supported. However, I was proud to author one of the most significant pieces of climate legislation signed into law: the bipartisan Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act. In addition to requiring at least a 10 mpg increase for passenger vehicles over 10 years, the law required ‘maximum feasible' fuel economy standards. That provision led to this year's federal rule requiring 54.5 mpg by 2025, a tremendous victory that will cut greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks in half by 2025 and reduce emissions by 6 billion metric tons. That's more than the total amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the United States in 2010.
Representative Ralph Hall, Texas–4 (R) and chair of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology, writes:
As Chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee I have had the opportunity to hear from widely respected scientists on all sides of this question. The only thing that is clear is that there continues to be great debate and uncertainty among these experts regarding the extent of natural climate variability versus human impacts, and what, if anything, enactment of economy-wide greenhouse gas regulations might do to alter our changing climate. I do not ignore those who, like former Vice President Al Gore, warn us about the seriousness of global warming. We should get the best science and stay abreast of any threat from human impacts, but I am disturbed that we have spent over thirty billion dollars studying climate change and have little to show for it.
More importantly, however, science alone does not and cannot tell us if cap-and-trade or other greenhouse gas regulatory regimes are a good idea; many other factors—particularly economic consequences—must be considered to answer this question. Unfortunately, this Administration has pursued a regulate-at-any-cost agenda with respect to greenhouse gases, completely disregarding the harmful impacts on our long-sputtering economy. Until we have a better handle on these issues, I will continue to oppose regulation of greenhouse gases because of the significant threat it presents to American jobs, the economy, and energy affordability and reliability.
Senator Tom Harkin, Iowa (D) and chair of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, writes:
Climate change is a global problem; hence global collaboration is needed to address it. Experiences with the Kyoto Treaty and the various international climate change conventions, however, tell us that formulating and adopting an effective international policy is very difficult.
The only practical approach is for individual nations to move forward together. We need to explore the adoption of universal, international pricing of greenhouse gas emissions. Individually, nations should establish domestic programs and policies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, especially through the promotion of energy efficiency and cleaner energy technologies. As more nations adopt such policies, other nations will be inclined to do the same. We are seeing some genuine progress in this direction. Shifting towards conservation and renewable technologies will, in the long term, not only help lower the adverse impacts of greenhouse gasses but can make a nation more competitive in the World economy.
Here in the U.S., our energy programs and policies are leading to increasing contributions from windpower, biofuels, natural gas, in addition to significant advances in energy efficiency in all sectors, and these are contributing to significant greenhouse gas reductions but, I believe those efforts could be significantly increased.
Senator Mitch McConnell, Kentucky (R) and Senate minority leader, did not respond to the eight science questions by press time. The senator opposes cap and trade, according to his Web site.
Representative John Mica, Florida–7 (R) and chair of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, writes:
I oppose cap-and-trade, carbon taxes and other tax penalties to address climate change. Government policy can encourage environmentalism by supporting research and development in alternative energies and by being good stewards of public lands. Internationally, we should further assist nations with the development and implementation of technologies that enhance our world environment.
Representative Nancy Pelosi, California–8 (D) and House minority leader, declined to respond to this question. Representative Pelosi's Web site has the following statement on energy and the environment:
I have made energy independence and combating climate change my flagship issue. Energy independence is a moral, environmental, health, economic and national security issue. We must support innovation in clean energy and efficiency technologies, in doing so we can reduce transit fares and help Americans struggling with energy prices.
Experts have been clear: Wall Street speculators are artificially driving up the price at the pump and causing pain to millions of American consumers. This year alone, gas prices have increased by 62 cents a gallon. Higher gas prices negative effects on our economy at large.
By repealing the tax breaks to multi-national oil companies, we can reduce the deficit and invest in clean energy jobs. Renewable energy like wind and solar, will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, lower energy costs and create millions of jobs that cannot be shipped overseas.
Profits for the biggest oil companies were at record-breaking levels in the last few years and Congress must take action to ease the pain at the pump. Comprehensive legislation that protects the pocketbooks of America’s taxpayers and consumers is critical as many continue to suffer from tough economic times. Preserving our planet is just as critical to ensuring a safe and bright future for future generations. With the future of our country, and indeed our entire planet, possibly at stake, now is time to turn our collective concerns about climate change into concerted action. We must work to prevent any future damage to our environment and world by developing new energy technologies and replacing fossil fuels with clean and renewable energy sources.
As we approach the 40th anniversary of the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, ensuring public health and sustaining a federal agency to regulate global warming emissions is crucial to the future of our nation and preservation of our planet. I have vigorously opposed bills that would weaken our nation's environmental protections which would endanger the health of all Americans. We must protect our nation's precious wetlands and coastlines by investing in technologies that will reduce air pollution and protect the natural habitat for any species along those shorelines.
Senator Harry Reid, Nevada (D) and Senate majority leader, did not respond to the question by press time. His Web site states:
Global warming is one of the greatest challenges of our time. The United States accounts for approximately 4 percent of the world’s population, yet it is responsible for about 25 percent of the world’s global warming pollution. Our government must provide domestic and global leadership on this issue because we have a moral responsibility to leave future generations with a safe and habitable world.
Climate change will have enormous consequences for Nevada, the Great Basin, and all of the Southwest – average temperatures are currently rising, and it is widely predicted that climate change will decrease precipitation. Drought will make farming and ranching tougher, increase the frequency and intensity of wildfires, and could drive many plant and animal species to extinction. Some invasive plants, such as cheatgrass, are better suited to hotter climates, and are already replacing native vegetation. These effects create serious challenges and could become catastrophic in the future if we fail to take action.
Climate change’s impact on our water supply could be the most devastating near-term impact on the desert southwest, which is why I have introduced legislation like the Drinking Water Adaptation, Technology, Education and Research (WATER) Act, the Water Efficiency, Conservation, and Adaptation Act, and the Water Infrastructure Resiliency and Sustainability Act. These bills would help address the urgent need for more research and investment to improve the ability of America’s water systems to meet our nation’s escalating water supply needs, in light of reduced water supplies caused by longer droughts from hotter temperatures.
Senator Jay Rockefeller, West Virginia (D) and chair of the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, writes:
There is clear and compelling scientific evidence that anthropogenic climate change is occurring. Ultimately, for this issue to be addressed in a meaningful way, a global effort will have to be coordinated that seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emission in both the developed and developing world. The United States should first show leadership in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.
The initial step in reducing greenhouse gas emissions must promote technology and practices to increase energy efficiency. In the transportation sector, the new CAFÉ standards for model years 2017-2025 are expected to decrease greenhouse by 2 billion metric tons. This is a clear step forward, but we must continue to spur efficiencies in the residential and commercial sectors and promote combined heat and power systems that can dramatically increase energy efficiency in the industrial sector while reducing cost.
We also need to explore alternative fuels with lower greenhouse gas emission profiles, integrate larger amounts or renewable into the electric grid and develop ways to use natural gas and coal in cleaner ways. To drive investment and provide the certainty needed to develop these technologies, some form of pricing mechanism will be needed to reflect the cost of greenhouse gases that is currently being paid by society. Incorporating a pricing mechanism into our climate policy would likely be more efficient at driving down greenhouse gas emissions at a lower cost than the current policy of regulating such emissions under the Clean Air Act. We saw success with the cap and trade mechanism in reducing acid rain at a significantly lower cost than originally anticipated. If we don't act swiftly to embrace the changes required to address this global challenge we could also face a carbon tax. No matter what mechanism the United States ultimately decides to employ in addressing climate change, it must be implemented in a way that minimizes costs and recognizes the impacts on different regions of the country, like my home state of West Virginia.
Representative Chris Van Hollen, Maryland–8 (D) and ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, writes:
The overwhelming scientific consensus is that the earth's climate is changing and that human activity – including emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases – is contributing to that change. In that regard, I introduced the first Cap and Dividend legislation in the United States Congress, which would have put a price on greenhouse gas emissions and rebated the proceeds to consumers in the form of a Healthy Climate Dividend. Additionally, I have supported comprehensive clean energy legislation like the House-passed American Clean Energy and Security Act, which included a cap and trade program, as well as Green Bank and Home Energy Savings Revolving Fund initiatives I authored. Finally, while I believe the United States should lead on this issue, I also favor robust international engagement with other greenhouse gas emitting countries in order to maximize our global progress in this area.
Representative Henry Waxman, California–30 (D) and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, writes:
Climate change is one of the most serious dangers facing the world today. Over the past twelve months, U.S. temperature records have repeatedly been shattered and we have experienced the droughts, floods, wildfires, and extreme weather events that scientists have long predicted would intensify and become more frequent as the planet warms. It is imperative that the United States act to sharply reduce U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases and that we engage with other nations to achieve world-wide emissions reductions.
I strongly support policies to address global climate change and believe that a comprehensive solution requires congressional action. Market-based policies such as cap-and-trade programs and carbon taxes offer the most cost-effective approach, and I strongly support such policies.
In the 111th Congress, Rep. Markey and I joined together to introduce the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, known also as the Waxman-Markey bill. This bill offered a comprehensive and cost-effective approach to reducing greenhouse gases through a cap-and-trade system to reduce emissions by 28% to 33% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 80% by 2050. The bill passed the House, but did not gain Senate approval.
This Congress, the House Republican leadership has attempted to reverse any progress on addressing climate change. Republicans have voted 47 times on the House floor to oppose action on climate change. These included votes to overrule the Supreme Court and repeal existing EPA authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases, to cut funding for clean energy, and to cut funding for climate change research. The House Republicans even voted to deny the fundamental scientific reality of climate change.
In light of the Republican denial of the science and opposition to action on climate change, I have called on the chairmen of the Energy and Commerce Committee and the relevant subcommittee to hold hearings on the science and impacts of climate change, so that the Committee could better understand the issues. I have written to the chairmen fifteen times requesting hearings on different topics related to climate change. Among others, I have requested hearings on new findings on the impacts of climate change on agriculture, new findings regarding the probability that extreme weather events are influenced by climate change, and new analysis of earth surface temperatures. I have never received a response to any of these requests.
Research and the Future. Federally funded research has helped to produce America's major postwar economies and to ensure our national security, but today the UK, Singapore, China, and Korea are making competitive investments in research. Given that the next Congress will face spending constraints, what priority would you give to investment in research in your upcoming budgets?
Representative Timothy Bishop, New York State–1 (D) and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, writes:
As I mentioned previously, federal investment in basic and advanced research is vital to our ability to drive our economy forward through innovation. In order to remain globally competitive in the 21st Century, we must continue our broad support for federal initiatives that have helped foster thousands of innovations like the microchip, GPS, the Internet, and the bar code, just to name a few.
In my district alone, Brookhaven National Lab has made monumental scientific discoveries and has been the breeding ground for hundreds of innovations that have led to economic gains for business and entrepreneurs, and which have improved the quality of life for millions of Americans. Similarly, investments in research through the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy, to name a few, have resulted in billions of dollars in economic activity, created thousands of jobs, and help position the U.S. to maintain its global leadership in innovation.
As we continue to grow our economy out of the worst recession since the Great Depression, we must be careful not to endanger the very programs and investments that have been critical to helping businesses create jobs. I strongly oppose efforts by some to reduce federal investment in research and education and I've consistently voted to maintain and increase funding for key federal agencies responsible for enhancing U.S. research efforts, as well as tax policies to encourage innovation and foster economic growth.
Representative John Boehner, Ohio–8 (R) and speaker of the House, declined to respond to the eight science questions we asked. Project Vote Smart, a non-partisan, non-profit organization that collects information on candidates for public office, lists Representative Boehner's voting record on measures related to science and medical research here.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, California (D) and chair of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, writes:
I believe federal funding must play a critical role in ensuring the United States remains at the forefront of scientific innovation. While I recognize we are operating under severe budgetary constraints, I will continue to promote efforts to fund critical science programs through my seat on the Senate Appropriations Committee. One example of this is my strong support for ARPA-E (Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy), an Energy Department agency that promotes and funds advanced energy technology R&D. Since 2009 the agency has received $800 million to fund more than 200 innovative energy technology projects. This agency is on the cutting edge of energy research, not only in the United States but globally.
Representative Ralph Hall, Texas–4 (R) and chair of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology, writes:
Despite the constrained budget environment, Federal investments in research continue to be a top priority, particularly basic research, which holds the key to our future. Our mission agencies also have critical applied research needs to fulfill their missions; therefore, it is imperative for Congress to robustly support basic research in a fiscally responsible way, while at the same time adequately fund critical mission needs. For those applied research areas outside of the immediate scope of mission agency needs, however, it is not the role of the federal government to make those investments, as those are best left to industry and market-driven forces. Growth in foreign research funding simply confirms the importance of continuing the U.S. commitment for basic research.
Senator Tom Harkin, Iowa (D) and chair of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, writes:
As the chairman of the Senate appropriations panel that oversees the National Institutes of Health (NIH), I have long championed federal funding for research. Between 1998 and 2003, Sen. Arlen Specter and I led a bipartisan effort to double the NIH budget over five years. Increases of that size are of course no longer possible today, but biomedical research should remain a high priority, not only because of its benefits to human health but also because of its impact on the U.S. economy. A recent study found that NIH research generated $62 billion in economic activity last year. Meanwhile, other countries such as China and Singapore have taken notice and are dramatically boosting their investments in biomedical research. These countries understand that the research of today will lead to the innovations of tomorrow. Although the United States remains the leader in this area, the gap between us and the rest of the world is closing. For the sake of the nation's health as well our economic future, we simply cannot afford to lose our emphasis on research.
Senator Mitch McConnell, Kentucky (R) and Senate minority leader, did not respond to the eight science questions by press time. Following President Obama's State of the Union Address on January 25, 2011, Senator McConnell commented on the Obama Administration's policies, including government spending. An excerpt from his prepared remarks follows. The remarks were accessed via the Congressional Record Online from the Government Printing Office:
The President has talked about the need to cut spending and reduce the debt. Yet over the past two years, his policies have added more than $3 trillion to the national debt, much of it through a Stimulus that promised to keep unemployment, now hovering just below double digits, from rising above 8 percent. And now we hear that he plans to stick with the same failed approach of economic growth through even more government spending with a call for 'investments' in education, infrastructure, research, and renewable energy. We've seen before what Democrats in Washington mean by investments. In promoting the failed Stimulus, the President referred to that too as an investment in our nation's future. Fourteen times alone during his signing statement, he referred to the Stimulus bill's investments. We all know how that turned out.
The first Stimulus, we were told, would also include critical so- called investments in education, infrastructure, scientific research, and renewable energy - the same areas we're told he'll focus on tonight. Only later did we learn that some of those critical investments included things like repairs on tennis courts, a study on the mating decisions of cactus bugs, hundreds of thousands of dollars for a plant database, and a $535 million loan to a California solar panel maker which, instead of hiring 1,000 new workers, as planned, just laid off 175 instead.
Senator McConnell has worked to secure funding for research based at universities in Kentucky according to a press release on his Web site. In the release, Senator McConnell is quoted:
Whether it’s for education, defense or agriculture, I will continue to use my seniority in the United States Senate to help bring home funding on behalf of the hard working people of Kentucky.
Representative John Mica, Florida–7 (R) and chair of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, writes:
To better prepare our children for the global economy, we should discourage policies that dumb down education curricula and redirect financial aid to those whose careers are directed toward science and technology fields. We must also do a better job of recruiting, educating and retaining qualified teachers. Too many students have a weak foundation in science and technology and are unable to develop their knowledge in those fields.
From a Federal perspective, education decisions are best handled at the local level as communities have different needs and resources. Federal policy should encourage school choice, require baseline achievement standards to receive Federal money and promote academic innovation by the states.
Representative Nancy Pelosi, California–8 (D) and House minority leader, writes:
Americans have two choices for the direction our country should move forward in the future. Democrats set out our preferred path in the America COMPETES Act, which grows scientific investments commensurate with their importance to our nation's future. Sadly, Republicans in the House passed the Ryan budget, which will slash about $800 billion in investment in education and skills training, science and technology research and development, and transportation infrastructure between 2013 and 2022.
Senator Harry Reid, Nevada (D) and Senate majority leader, did not respond to the eight science questions by press time. The senator was a lead sponsor for the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. On his Web site, he writes:
I am also a longtime supporter of the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs, which represent the federal government's largest small business research and development programs. Small businesses play a key role in spurring innovation and the SBIR and STTR programs provide these businesses with the capital they need to develop the next great technological advancement, and to create jobs to put more Nevadans back to work. Recently, after several months of obstruction, I was pleased to pass a long-term reauthorization of these valuable initiatives. I will continue to support programs and policies that help Nevada's high-tech businesses out-innovate our global competitors and stay on the cutting edge of technology.
Senator Reid's Web site contains a section devoted to his stance on medical research, in which he highlights several legislative initiatives he has led. The senator states:
Throughout my career in the Senate, I have supported increased funding for life-saving medical research. While I am proud that we have doubled our national medical research budget at the National Institutes of Health over the five year period of 1998 to 2003, I am particularly disappointed about spending proposals in recent years that would reverse this trend. We need to continue to invest in medical research that will lead to immeasurable contributions in the fight against a number of serious illnesses, including cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, and Parkinson's. At a time when we are the verge of major new breakthroughs and the burden of chronic disease continues to grow, we should not shortchange a priority as important as promising medical research.
Senator Jay Rockefeller, West Virginia (D) and chair of the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, writes:
Predictable and sustained research investments are necessary if we are to prevent the loss of our competitive edge, which is why I have fought for R&D investments for many years. The United States has historically enacted policies that deliberately advance science and technology through creating the economic and intellectual conditions needed for innovation. The international community is now recognizing areas of policy that have enabled the United States to maintain its competitive edge in science and technology. Countries like Japan, Germany, China, and South Korea have developed the technology to compete in industries once dominated by the United States.
An area where the United States continues to lead, for example, is in nanotechnology R&D and commercialization, but the European Union and Russia have outspent the U.S. in government funding for nanotechnology research. The Senate Commerce Committee has focused on national investment in nanotechnology and its potential to transform such fields as health care, homeland security, and information technology. Continued funding and new legislation would help to fully realize the economic return on the federal investment in this area. The National Nanotechnology Initiative is a great example of cross-agency cooperation working toward shared goals and priorities that has allowed the U.S. to gain global leadership in the field. The United States is able to pioneer research and development, but we will need to translate early successes into effective commercialization if we want to reap the full economic potential of new fields.
Concurrent with the long-term investments in research is the need to invest in STEM education. The trend is clear: Globalization and outsourcing, combined with a decrease in U.S. preeminence in scientific and technological advancement, has led to job losses. The United States has lost 28 percent of the high-technology manufacturing jobs that existed in 2000 while nearly 85 percent of R&D-related employment growth by U.S. multinational companies since 2004 has been abroad. Policies to encourage STEM education for U.S. students and contribute to effective learning will increase our workforce's capabilities to compete in a 21st Century global economy.
Our nation's competitiveness and economic prosperity, however, depends on encouraging more participation in the research enterprise. The Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) was created to help states underfunded by the National Science Foundation develop the research capacity necessary to compete on a global scale. Our economic future depends on research capabilities extending beyond top-tier universities and institutions to facilities where innovation can still thrive.
Representative Chris Van Hollen, Maryland–8 (D) and ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, writes:
We can maintain America's global leadership by prioritizing investments in research and development as part of a balanced plan and fiscally responsible budget. In fact, the budget proposed by President Obama and mirrored in the House Democratic budget achieves this goal. While cutting the deficit, the Democratic budget ensures the U.S. remains a world leader in innovation by supporting the next generation of scientific leaders. In contrast, the Republican budget threatens this funding by reducing non–defense discretionary funds by $26.6 billion, or 5.3% below the level in the Democratic budget. Over ten years, the Republican budget cuts non–defense spending by $900 billion, or 17% below the Democratic budget.
Representative Henry Waxman, California–30 (D) and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, writes:
It is critically important that we prioritize funding for clean energy initiatives. We need to end our dependence on oil, which hurts consumers at the pump and threatens our climate and national security. Congress should support this Administration's clean energy initiatives because our economic future depends on building the clean energy industries of tomorrow.
Unfortunately, the Republicans seek to dismantle many of our government's clean energy initiatives. During this Congress, the Republican House voted 52 times to defund or repeal clean energy initiatives. The Republican budget, introduced by Rep. Paul Ryan, would slash discretionary spending for energy programs by over 50% next year, derailing efforts to increase energy efficiency and develop wind, solar, geothermal, and other clean energy sources. The Ryan budget would also repeal funding for the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Program and the Department of Energy's loan guarantee program. At the same time, the Republican budget continues to provide $40 billion in tax breaks for oil companies.
The priorities reflected in the Republican budget are backwards: we should be cutting subsidies to established profitable industries like the oil companies and investing in new technologies.
Education. Increasingly, the global economy is driven by science, technology, engineering and math, but a recent comparison of 15-year-olds in 65 countries found that average science scores among U.S. students ranked 23rd, while average U.S. math scores ranked 31st. In your view, why have American students fallen behind over the last three decades, and what role should the federal government play to better prepare students of all ages for the science and technology-driven global economy?
Representative Timothy Bishop, New York State–1 (D) and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, writes:
Without a doubt, the U.S. is still the undisputed champion of innovation that drives the global economy forward. However, in an increasingly globalized world in which other nations continue to modernize, future generations will face ever-increasing competition from our neighbors abroad. It is clear that a highly-skilled and highly-educated workforce is absolutely essential to maintaining American's role as a global leader, so it is critical that we continue to support investments in education to ensure our next generation has the skills and knowledge necessary to reach their goals.
One of the most important tools to prepare our youth for the challenges of tomorrow is science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education. As a member of the Education & Workforce committee, I strongly support STEM education initiatives and strongly oppose recent efforts to reduce federal funding in these areas. Furthermore, if we are to be a successful nation tomorrow, we must expand access to our schools and improve the quality of education in our classrooms. That is why I support increased funding for primary and secondary education, as well as policies that ensure students and teachers have the tools they need to be successful.
Representative John Boehner, Ohio–8 (R) and speaker of the House, declined to respond to the eight science questions we asked. On his Web site he outlines his priorities for education reform:
Leaving No Child Behind in Our Nation’s Schools
The No Child Left Behind Act is a blueprint for fundamental education reform, and it represents a huge step in the right direction for Americans who believe big government is not the solution to problems with our education system. We have already seen that more bureaucracy is not the answer.For more than 30 years, Washington has spent more than $300 billion on public education. Yet there is still a huge disparity in educational achievement between disadvantaged students and their more affluent peers. For the first time in years, with the implementation of No Child Left Behind, we are finally insisting on results.
When I served as Chairman of the House Education & Workforce Committee, I worked to craft an education bill that reflected the principles of accountability, local control, funding for what works, and expanded parental options. Our efforts have paid off.
No Child Left Behind gives control and flexibility to local and state governments over how they use federal education funds, instead of relying on Washington bureaucrats to make decisions about our childrens’ education. This is the first step toward closing the achievement gap between disadvantaged students and their peers.
Expanding School Choice
School choice programs give parents and their children options in education, which should be a common goal for all of us. The issue is not where students go to school, but rather how they are educated. With this in mind, I’ve long supported opportunity scholarships, which allow students transfer from underperforming schools to higher achieving schools where they can take advantage of the best our education system has to offer. We should be encouraging school choice and encouraging schools to provide students with opportunities to improve their education rather than forcing students to accept sub-standard options.Addressing the College Cost Crisis
It’s no secret to college students, recent graduates, and their parents that the cost of obtaining a college education has been spiraling out of control. According to the College Board, there was very little real growth in college prices during the 1970s. In the early 1980s, however, the tide began to take a turn for the worse. Tuition and fees began to grow much more rapidly than the average prices of other goods and services. In fact, during the 1980s, the cost of attending college rose more than three times as fast as the typical family income. This trend of rapidly-increasing college costs continued unfettered through the 1990s.In late 2003, the House Education Committee released a report showing that costs for higher education are rising because students and parents lack the consistent ability to hold the higher education system accountable for disproportionate tuition increases. In short, they don’t have access to the kind of information they need to fully exercise their power as consumers. After all, college students and their parents are just that: “consumers.” And for these consumers, the market has not been kind.
Consider this: Over a ten-year period ending in 2002-2003 - after adjusting for inflation - the average tuition at both public and private colleges rose 38 percent. Looking back even further, since 1981, the cost of a four-year public education has risen by 202 percent! That’s MORE THAN DOUBLE the average cost increase for other goods and services during that same time period.
But wait – there is good news. As the College Board notes, there is now a record amount of financial aid available for struggling students and families. And even knowing this, I will continue to fight for expanded access to higher education for low and middle-income students by:
• Strengthening Pell Grants, student aid, student access, and minority serving institutions;
• Reducing red tape for students and graduates;
• Removing barriers for non-traditional students; and
• Empowering consumers through “sunshine” and transparency in college costs & accreditation.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, California (D) and chair of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, writes:
I have always been a strong supporter of schools and teachers. In particular, I believe excellent teachers in math and science classrooms are critical for the United States to remain competitive. It is imperative that we fully prepare our students with the skills necessary for 21st century jobs, particularly in the fields of science, technology, engineering and math (STEM). I supported the America COMPETES Act, a bill signed into law last year that increased funding for STEM education. The federal government and its partners must coordinate efforts to increase student interest in math and science long before they reach college age in order to boost the number of STEM graduates entering the workforce.
Representative Ralph Hall, Texas–4 (R) and chair of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology, writes:
Our nation has long been the leader in science and innovation. In order to maintain this prominence, we must have robust STEM education efforts in place at all levels of education, from pre-K through post-graduate. Unfortunately, the Federal Government has invested more than $16 billion on STEM education over the last five years alone, with very little to show for it. Throwing more and more money at the problem is not going to fix it. It is going to take dedicated teachers with the right skills set, committed parents, responsive school administrations, and invested communities to engage these students and reverse the trend. Fortunately, industry, philanthropic organizations, non-profits, parents, teachers, and state and local governments are stepping up to the plate and working together to capture and hold the attention of our nation's youth in STEM education so they will want to pursue these careers, not be forced into them simply because we need them. This is how it should be, as STEM education is a state and local issue and should remain so. However, the Federal Government does have a role to play in this equation, primarily as a facilitator of stakeholders and as a disseminator of best practices and model programs. It is for these reasons that the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, has held a series of STEM in Action hearings this Congress to highlight various STEM partnerships, replicable STEM-focused schools, and stellar in-school and out-of-school STEM programs.
Likewise, it is for these same reasons that I, along with several of my colleagues, requested the National Academies to look at what steps all stakeholders "could take to assure the ability of the American research university to maintain the excellence in research and doctoral education needed to help the United States compete, prosper, and achieve national goals for health, energy, the environment, and security in the global community of the 21st century." The findings can be found in the report, Research Universities and the Future of America. Similarly for the K-12 level, the Committee has highlighted a number of best practices and model programs that were showcased in the NAS report requested by Congress, Successful K-12 Stem Education: Identifying Effective Approaches in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics.
Senator Tom Harkin, Iowa (D) and chair of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, writes:
To address our country's needs to improve student math and science proficiency, in my October 2011 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act I, along with Senator Merkley of Oregon, included a bill entitled the Improving Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Instruction and Student Achievement grants program. This new STEM program will improve student outcomes in math and science by:
- Improving instruction in STEM subjects for students in pre-K through grade 12;
- Getting students engaged and excited about STEM subjects and careers;
- Increasing student access to high-quality STEM courses;
- Improving the quality and effectiveness of classroom instruction by recruiting, training, and supporting highly effective STEM teachers; and
- Closing student achievement gaps, and preparing more students to be on track to college and career readiness and success in STEM subjects.
By ensuring that teachers have 21st century knowledge, providing science and math curriculum in elementary school, having school districts identify gaps in availability of high quality math and science courses, and providing those courses to all students, we will be able to improve the outcomes of our students in the critical areas of math, science, technology and engineering.
Senator Mitch McConnell, Kentucky (R) and Senate minority leader, did not respond to the eight science questions by press time. The senator was a lead sponsor of the America COMPETES Act. At that time he released a statement available via the States News Service and published April 24, 2007. The whole statement follows:
As a child, my parents encouraged me to do better in my math and science classes in school. I'll admit they weren't my best subjects. I just couldn't see as a kid how math and science would be that important to me in the future.
As a Senator, however, I've come to see how imperative it is for today's students to master math and science, so America can retain its competitive edge in the global economy of the 21st century.
America currently has the greatest scientific and technological enterprise in the world. We have the finest system of colleges and universities anywhere. But in many ways we have become complacent, while other countries are catching up.
They see that by investing in science and technology, and in the education of their citizens, they can attract jobs and create wealth. We must make the same investment in our future if we are to maintain our leadership through this century and beyond in the global marketplace.
A few years ago, realizing that America was falling behind, a group of Senators approached the National Academy of Sciences, a venerable organization bringing together the country's leading scientific minds.
We asked them a simple question: What are the top 10 actions that policymakers in Washington could take to keep America in the lead in science and technology for the 21st Century?
The Academy turned to its members leaders of business, government, and academia and came up with an answer. And the good news is that boosting the number of rocket scientists along with mathematicians, engineers and computer designers is not rocket science.
Many of the Academy's recommendations now form an important bill that the Senate is currently considering, the America COMPETES Act. It will help maintain and improve the United States' competitive edge over the next century by increasing our investment in basic research, strengthening educational opportunities in science, technology, engineering and math at all educational levels, and encouraging young people to pursue careers in those fields.
This fall, the Academy of Mathematics and Science in Kentucky at Western Kentucky University, in Bowling Green, will open. It will bring together talented high-school students from all over the Commonwealth to study advanced math and science year-round for college credit.
The America COMPETES Act would provide federal support to advanced academies like the Kentucky Academy throughout the nation. It would also allow Kentucky to provide scholarships for students pursuing careers as math or science teachers, and hold summer academies for math and science teachers across the state to help them inspire their students.At all the major centers for learning across our state, the faculty and administrators understand the importance of emphasizing math, science and engineering to keep Kentucky competitive with the rest of the country and the world.
The America COMPETES Act will help them do that by devoting more federal funding to research and development efforts at universities, creating hundreds of new opportunities for young scientists. These investments will eventually generate new discoveries, new high-tech companies, and new jobs.
America has led the world in innovation for over a century. From the light bulb to the airplane to the integrated circuit, we have given the world the tools to live happier, easier, and more productive lives.But now countries like China and India are seeing the benefits of brainpower and what it can do to remake their economies. America's failure to value the importance of a scientific education has put us behind, and Congress can take the lead in beginning to solve it.
The America COMPETES Act is the best way to keep more of the jobs of the 21st Century right here in America, and in Kentucky. With it, we can ensure that our children have the skills to keep America at the forefront of innovation and discovery.
Representative John Mica, Florida–7 (R) and chair of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, writes:
To better prepare our children for the global economy, we should discourage policies that dumb down education curricula and redirect financial aid to those whose careers are directed toward science and technology fields. We must also do a better job of recruiting, educating and retaining qualified teachers. Too many students have a weak foundation in science and technology and are unable to develop their knowledge in those fields.
From a Federal perspective, education decisions are best handled at the local level as communities have different needs and resources. Federal policy should encourage school choice, require baseline achievement standards to receive Federal money and promote academic innovation by the states.
Representative Nancy Pelosi, California–8 (D) and House minority leader, writes:
Actually, rather than "falling behind," what has happened over the last 20 years is that the performance of U.S. students in math and science has stayed the same (rather than improved) while the performance of students in many other nations has grown exponentially, outdistancing our students. This is because over the last 20 years a number of countries have focused national attention on their students excelling in the areas of math and science education as a way for their country to create a highly-skilled workforce, allowing the country to compete in the increasingly competitive global economy. Unfortunately, the United States has only recently begun focusing our national attention and our national resources on the importance of our students excelling in math and science education.
I believe the federal government needs to play a collaborative role with the states in better preparing students for the 21st century economy. That is why, as Speaker, we enacted the America COMPETES Act of 2007, which placed a new emphasis on science, technology, engineering, and math education, including creating scholarships for tens of thousands of new highly-qualified math and science teachers; and the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, which created programs to bolster students' interest in science and technology through collaborations with businesses and other stakeholders and focused on recruiting teachers in high-demand science and technology fields.
Senator Harry Reid, Nevada (D) and Senate majority leader, did not respond to the eight science questions by press time. He has a section of his Web site that describes his priorities for education:
As someone whose life was transformed by education, I understand the importance of providing all Nevadans the opportunity to receive a quality education. That is why I have fought to provide resources for Nevada's schools, colleges, and universities and worked to make higher education affordable and accessible to more Nevada students. I remain committed to addressing Nevada's high dropout rate, concerns with the No Child Left Behind Act, and ensuring that Nevada students are prepared for college or a career.
Preparing Nevada's Students for the Global Economy
We must ensure that our nation's students and teachers are prepared to continue leading the world in innovation, research, and technology. Towards this end, during the 110th Congress, I helped lead passage of the America COMPETES Act, to improve math and science education and increase the federal commitment to research. I was pleased to help lead passage of a reauthorization of this important legislation in 2010.In addition, the Recovery Act included significant funding for scientific research and technology and to expand access to broadband, particularly in rural communities. These investments will help ensure that students have the skills they need to be ready for higher education and the workforce.
A New Direction for No Child Left Behind
It is clear that significant changes need to be made to the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). It has been vastly underfunded, accountability measures have proven far too punitive, and states have been given little flexibility in implementing the law's requirements. It has caused good schools to be labeled as failing and puts undue pressure on students and teachers to focus on passing standardized tests instead of engaging in other subjects such as the sciences, history, art, or music.The Senate and House education committees are currently working on ways to improve NCLB – which is now referred to by its original name, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). I am committed to a reauthorization that ensures accountability, but recognizes all levels of student improvement and growth. I am also deeply troubled by Nevada's persistently high dropout rate, and will work to ensure that ESEA contains provisions to address middle and high school improvement and dropout prevention.
I am committed to making this law work for Nevada's schools, teachers, administrators, parents, and our students. I have heard from each of Nevada's school superintendents and education leaders across the state on ways to improve ESEA. I also want to hear from you about how we can improve this law, and would welcome your concerns or suggestions about ESEA.
Senator Jay Rockefeller, West Virginia (D) and chair of the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, writes:
I worry that we Americans are spending too much time watching sports and entertainment - and too little time on educational achievement. Education plays a critical role in keeping America competitive. As the economy becomes more driven by technology, our workforce will need to become more proficient in STEM fields in order to remain competitive on the job market. Over the last 10 years, STEM jobs were created three times faster than non-STEM jobs. However, American students are finding themselves ill prepared to excel in college; 20 percent of high school students entering college have to take at least one remedial class to prepare for university-level coursework. Furthermore, we are losing foreign students studying at advanced levels in the United States to their home countries who return to become leading researchers and innovators.
Legislation in Congress, including the DREAM Act, would provide students with opportunities to further their education and properly prepare for advanced job requirements. And increasing the number of visas allocated for foreign students earning STEM degrees would keep qualified workers in the country and ensure the United States remains competitive, though we can't decrease other green card programs that support other legal immigration.
The majority of the fastest-growing occupations in the United States depend on intimate knowledge of math and science. Yet we are failing our students by improperly preparing them for advanced careers. U.S. students typically score below the average of OECD nations on international math and science tests. And universities in Asia are now awarding more than half of all engineering degrees.
But our investments in STEM must be strategic. At a recent Senate Commerce Committee hearing, Nobel Laureate Carl Wieman gave important testimony about the need to dramatically change how we teach STEM subjects to both students and educators. Teachers—from elementary school through higher education—need to understand the learning process, scientific method and STEM information in order to successfully instruct and inspire students. Changing our teacher education programs is a serious challenge, but one that must be confronted to develop a competitive American workforce.
The economic incentives for graduates in STEM fields are also clear. Workers in STEM fields tend to earn a higher salary, on average, and the unemployment rate is historically lower. Despite the national level of unemployment, the United States is facing an overall shortage of STEM workers. Many CEOs are also calling for higher standards for STEM proficiency in U.S. schools, citing the future needs of their companies.
A February 2012 report from the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology found that one million additional STEM graduates will be needed in the next ten years to fill the growing number of jobs requiring STEM knowledge outside of the traditional STEM fields. We need to improve job training to align our workforce with the skills demanded by the global economy. And we need to find ways to train people to fill these jobs today while preparing students for future high-tech jobs.
There are challenges ahead to properly educate and prepare U.S. students for STEM competency. But programs like NASA's "Summer of Innovation" and the President's "Educate to Innovate" are in place to motivate and inspire students in STEM education. U.S. leadership in research and innovation is ultimately at risk without a skilled workforce with knowledge in STEM fields.
Representative Chris Van Hollen, Maryland–8 (D) and ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, writes:
There is no single explanation for the challenge America faces in STEM education – issues range from the persistent achievement gap in high-poverty schools to teacher training and professional development. I agree with"Rising Above the Gathering Storm" that we must develop outstanding K-12 teachers in math and science that have subject-matter expertise and can engage students in meaningful ways. I support President Obama's goal of 100,000 effective math and science teachers to train one million STEM graduates over the next decade through new competitive grants for STEM teacher training programs and funding for the National Science Foundation and Department of Education to identify and disseminate best practices for quality teacher preparation and student learning at K-12 and undergraduate levels.
I also support the state-driven transition to common core standards. I am pleased that most states are adopting the new math standards, and look forward to the final Next Generation Science Standards. It is essential that we challenge students with a rigorous, comprehensive curriculum that prepares them to compete globally.
Representative Henry Waxman, California–30 (D) and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, writes:
Although our colleges and universities are home to world-class science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) programs that attract the best and brightest domestic and international students, I am very concerned that the math and science test scores of American school children are lagging behind their counterparts in other countries. I believe we must create more opportunities for students to gain hands-on experiences that inspire them to pursue STEM learning. The Obama Administration has put forth several strategies to address the shortcomings in our education system and improve student achievement in these vital areas, including the President's goal of training an additional 100,000 effective STEM teachers over the next ten years. I also support the Administration's efforts to engage private sector employers in STEM education programs that connect students to career opportunities in STEM fields.
The innovation and technological breakthroughs that emerge from STEM fields are vital to our economic growth and prosperity, and we must raise our commitment to STEM teaching and learning across all levels of our education system to maintain our edge in the global economy. We cannot maintain the promise of American ingenuity without investing in the next generation of leaders in these critical fields.
Energy. Many policymakers and scientists say energy security and sustainability are major problems facing the United States this century. What policies would you support to meet the demand for energy while ensuring an economically and environmentally sustainable future?
Representative Timothy Bishop, New York State–1 (D) and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, writes:
In order to meet our future energy demands, we must continue to invest in basic energy research to improve our current technologies to better utilize traditional forms of energy, as well as explore new energy resources. We must also support policies that incentivizes and enhances energy efficiency. I am proud of my record to expand and incentivize our use of clean and efficient energy technologies. For example, I have voted to improve fuel efficiency standards for vehicles, to provide communities with funding to expand public transportation, to provide tax credits to expand the use of wind and solar technologies, as well as expanding access to grants and tax credits for homeowners to weatherize their homes and purchase more fuel efficient vehicles. I also support policies to better utilize U.S. energy resources in a responsible and cost effective manner. This includes not only wind, solar, hydro and tidal resources, but also our abundance of coal and natural gas resources.
We must also be better stewards of hard-earned taxpayer dollars by directing federal investment where it can be most effective in addressing our energy needs. This means repealing outdated tax incentives for Big Oil who are benefiting from record profits and redirecting that money towards more innovative technologies and cleaner energy industries.
While there is no silver bullet to our nation's energy needs, these short-term solutions help advance our collective efforts to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, protect public health and protect our environment.
Representative John Boehner, Ohio–8 (R) and speaker of the House, declined to respond to the eight science questions we asked. On his Web site he lists bills passed by the House pertaining to the Republican-led American Energy Initiative. After the House passed the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act, Representative Boehner released the following column on June 22, 2012:
Millions of Americans are jobless or underemployed, energy prices remain too high, and wages are stagnant in the Obama economy. That’s why the House is working relentlessly to remove government barriers that are holding back robust economic growth and driving up prices on families and small businesses.
According to the National Federation of Independent Business, ‘energy costs are one of the top three business expenses in 35 percent of small businesses’ in our country. The average price for a gallon of gas in Ohio remains above $3. While these prices are an improvement from the record-setting prices we saw earlier in the year, they are still far too high for families and small businesses struggling to make ends meet. We need to do more to help bring down these costs and get our job creators back to creating jobs.
Unfortunately, at the urging of radical special interest groups that oppose increased production of American-made energy, President Obama has delayed, blocked, and restricted access to America’s energy resources, resulting in a 14 percent drop in federal energy production since 2010. From an offshore drilling moratorium to a de facto one put in place through the permitting and leasing process, American energy and the jobs it creates have too often been pushed aside by the Obama administration and its allies in Washington.
By contrast, my Republican colleagues and I in the House are taking action to encourage American job creation and lower the price at the pump for families and small businesses.
Furthering our all-of-the-above national energy strategy, we launched the American Energy Initiative in March of last year. This plan outlines long-term, commonsense solutions that will address gas prices for families and small businesses, create new jobs by increasing energy production, and approve job-creating initiatives like the Keystone pipeline.
As part of the American Energy Initiative, the House recently passed, with bipartisan support, the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act (H.R. 4480). This legislation combines seven different energy bills that are designed to increase American energy production and create jobs. The bill includes measures to stop excessive government regulations, streamline bureaucratic permit processes, eliminate red tape, and open new federal land to energy production to create thousands of new American jobs.
These long-term supply solutions will create jobs and lower energy costs. H.R. 4480, along with the other American Energy Initiative bills, deserves immediate consideration by the Democratic-controlled Senate. If President Obama is serious about helping get Americans back to work, he’ll call for swift action on this and the more than 30 other House-passed jobs bills still awaiting a vote by Senate Democrats.
House Republicans will remain focused on helping job creation across the country, and we hope that our colleagues across the aisle will work with us. Learn more about the American Energy Initiative and all of House Republicans' plans to encourage private-sector job growth by visiting Jobs.GOP.gov.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, California (D) and chair of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, writes:
As a result of my bipartisan Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act, which was signed into law in 2007, vehicles are more fuel-efficient and the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards are headed toward responsible levels, based on the best science available. New standards will increase fleet wide fuel economy to 35.5 mpg by 2016 and 54.5 by 2025, up from 25 mpg in 2006. This will save consumers more than $1.7 trillion at the gas pump and reduce U.S. oil consumption by 12 billion barrels. I am also a strong proponent of renewable energy technologies. This year I joined with Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe to draft provisions to renew critical tax incentives for energy efficient buildings and factories. And in 2009 and 2010 I championed renewable energy tax incentives that have been widely credited with growing the renewable energy sector even during the current economic downturn. Nationwide, renewable electricity production capacity has doubled over recent years, a remarkable achievement.
Representative Ralph Hall, Texas–4 (R) and chair of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology, writes:
The best way to increase the energy security of our nation is to encourage and expand production of our vast domestic resources, which will not only increase our domestic supply, but also put Americans back to work. America is blessed with a wealth of natural resources; Citigroup has predicted that the U.S. could soon overtake Saudi Arabia and Russia as the world's largest oil producer. By expanding access to lands for safe and responsible energy production, promoting infrastructure developments, and pursuing market-based solutions to reduce demand, we can increase energy security and sustainability while also creating jobs and spurring economic growth.
Unfortunately, President Obama has chosen a very different path - limiting federal lands available for lease, restricting development in the Gulf of Mexico and Outer Continental Shelf, blocking over a million acres of public land for oil shale development, and regulating the oil and gas industry at every opportunity. Additionally, the Administration has rejected the Keystone XL pipeline, a major infrastructure project that would decrease bottlenecks in the transport of crude oil, ensure availability and continued access to critical petroleum resources, and create jobs and increase local tax revenues. Despite the benefits of and need for such a project, the President rejected the pipeline permit in a political move designed to appease his supporters in the environmental community. Those same environmentalists oppose energy production in the Alaska National Wildlife refuge, saying "don't drill on little ANWR." But it's just 2,000 acres out of 19,000,000 and could supply us more than one million barrels of oil per day.
A genuine "all of the above" approach would expand opportunities for production rather than stifle them, open land for development rather than restrict it, replace confusion and red tape with regulatory certainty, and could position the U.S. as a top global energy producer for decades to while enhancing the energy security of our nation.
Senator Tom Harkin, Iowa (D) and chair of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, writes:
Our energy economy is the source of several major problems. Our energy systems are the source of the vast majority of our greenhouse gas emissions as well as a great deal of our air and water pollution. Our dependence on imported energy supplies also makes us vulnerable to disruptions. Finally, we know that the fossil fuel resources that supply the majority of our energy needs are finite. We need to transition our energy economy to one that is significantly more efficient and sustainable. That means continuing and maintaining support for both energy R&D and alternative energy adoption. The recently announced CAFÉ standards coupled with the Renewable Fuel Standard represent the kind of trajectory for beginning such a transition for our highway transportation sector. The drive towards net-zero energy buildings represents a similar trajectory for the buildings sector. The building sector focus needs to include energy efficiency retrofits because of the slow turnover in that sector. The rapid expansion of windpower, the broader adoption of geothermal energy systems, and the rapidly growing adoption of solar power are providing strong inroads toward more sustainable electric power generation. In short, we are starting our move toward a sustainable energy future, and we need to stay the course.
Senator Mitch McConnell, Kentucky (R) and Senate minority leader, did not respond to the eight science questions by press time. He outlines his energy views on his Web site:
We need to find more American energy, and use less. This means developing more of America's own energy resources, including wind, solar, clean coal, biofuels, nuclear energy, as well as oil and natural gas -- which will reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil and create thousands of jobs here at home. A balanced energy policy which both finds more, and uses less will strengthen our economy, protect our environment, and enhance our national security.
Coal especially is a vital part of Kentucky’s economy and history. With over half of our nation’s electricity coming from coal, this industry must remain a key component of our nation’s energy strategy. Preserving our environment is an important responsibility, and we must do so in a sensible manner than does not harm our economy or raise prices on working families.
I was encouraged by President Obama's calls for the construction of more nuclear power plants, as well as for increased offshore exploration of oil and natural gas, and the further development of clean coal technologies. These are all critical components of any commitment to maintain both a healthy economy and a healthy environment.
Representative John Mica, Florida–7 (R) and chair of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, writes:
It is vital that America continue to work toward energy independence and future sustainability. In the short term, the Federal government can encourage increased use of nuclear energy by streamlining the permitting process and by backing necessary financing to get new facilities online. We should also encourage and incentivize domestic energy production. In the longer term, prudent investments in new technologies should continue. American innovation can and should lead the way to energy independence.
Representative Nancy Pelosi, California–8 (D) and House minority leader, writes:
House Democrats support an "all-of-the-above" approach that embraces all domestic energy supplies in a safe and responsible way. This includes working to create jobs by expanding affordable clean energy. When we passed the America COMPETES Act, we bolstered basic funding at the Department of Energy's Office of Science, and we created ARPA-E, an innovative program, modeled after the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, to encourage the pursuit of high-risk, high-reward renewable, clean energy technology development. In the bipartisan 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, we increased new fuel economy standards for vehicles, along with other provisions to increase energy efficiency, save drivers money, reduce pollution, and strengthen our security by making America less dependent on foreign oil. President Obama has built on that work – taking additional steps to strengthen our economy, support the auto industry, and create good-paying American jobs. Thanks to policies like those contained in the 2007 law, dependence on foreign oil has dropped by 25 percent since President Obama entered office. Meanwhile, our domestic oil and gas production is at record levels. But there is more to do.
Senator Harry Reid, Nevada (D) and Senate majority leader, did not respond to the eight science questions by press time. He spoke on August 9, 2012 at the National Clean Energy Summit in Las Vegas, NV. His full speech includes references to extreme weather events around the country and says they are likely due to global warming. He also urged the closure of the Reid Gardner coal-fired power plant north of Las Vegas and endorsed solar power as an alternative. An excerpt from his prepared remarks, published by the US Fed News Service and accessed via Lexis Nexis, follows:
There should be no one in this room who doubts the importance of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels - not only because it's good for the environment, but because it's good for the economy and good for national security.
We've already seen how incentives, funding and public-private partnerships have spurred job creation and innovation in this critical sector. This has been a ray of sunshine during the Great Recession.
It is easy to see the logic, the urgency and the opportunity of a clean energy revolution. That is why President Obama has fought hard to advance the policies that will reduce our reliance on oil and other fossil fuels, increase our production of clean energy and create good-paying jobs that can never be outsourced.
But his administration has waged an up-hill battle against moneyed special interests and their allies in Congress, who are invested in maintaining their sweetheart relationship with coal and oil companies.As hard as it is to comprehend, there are still members of Congress resisting clean energy's American success story. And sadly they're doing their best to send clean energy industries and jobs overseas, and hindering the revolution in the process.
On his Web site, Senator Reid writes:
Our country is too dependent on oil and fossil fuels, which pollute our air, place our economy and national security at risk, and contribute to climate change. As the Senate Majority Leader, I am working on building a clean energy future that will help provide Americans safe, reliable, and affordable supplies of clean energy.
In March 2012, I released a report that details how Nevada’s renewable energy economy has been aided by federal legislation focused on spurring investment in clean energy and the reform of policies that have accelerated the deployment of clean energy projects on federal lands. Click here to read the report.
Through the Recovery Act, Nevada has received over $550 million for a range of energy efficiency, renewable, and weatherization projects as well as hundreds of millions in low-cost financing for transmission and renewable energy deployment projects. This legislation provided billions to modernize our electric grid and to enhance the security and reliability of energy infrastructure. The legislation also provided competitive funding for geothermal technologies, biomass research and development, and advanced battery manufacturing. These types of investments are making Nevada’s institutions of higher education, schools, cities, private businesses, and counties synonymous with some of the nation’s most innovative clean energy projects. And these are the types of clean energy projects that can help cost-effectively reduce our inefficient use of dirty fossil fuels, and through the electrification of our transportation sector, reduce our addiction to oil.
I was pleased to help ensure the legislation included extensions of important renewable energy production and investment tax credits, eliminated the previous cap on the credit for residential solar electric systems, and created the new Treasury Department’s (Section 1603) grant in lieu of tax credit program. These kinds of incentives are imperative for protecting our economic, energy and national security and providing business certainty. They have helped make solar electric panels more accessible and affordable for the average homeowner and helped businesses tap into the American innovative spirit, create jobs and build sustainable economic growth, and are speeding the development of Nevada’s and the West’s abundant solar, wind, and geothermal resources.
Senator Jay Rockefeller, West Virginia (D) and chair of the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, writes:
Any comprehensive national energy policy must be based upon providing cleaner, domestic, reliable and affordable energy. Often these objectives can be conflicting, but we must not accept arguments that we have to choose between these goals. Rather we should continue seeking improvements in the way we use all energy sources. We must focus on bringing together wind, solar, natural gas, biofuels, hydroelectric, geothermal and advanced clean coal as part of a diversified energy portfolio since there is no single solution. Then, we can seek to improve each energy resource individually and better integrate them collectively. Improving energy efficiency—doing the same with less—is the cheapest and easiest step we can take to increase the security and sustainability of our energy supply.
Increasing our domestic energy production in a clean and sustainable manner will contribute to local economic development and create well-paying jobs in ways that ensure future energy consumption is economically viable. As an example, I firmly believe that there is great promise in advanced technologies, such as Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS), that can allow us to use our domestic coal and natural gas with greatly reduced carbon emissions. At the same time, the CO2 that is captured from power plants can be used to extract more oil from depleted domestic oil fields through enhanced oil recovery. Additionally, when combined with biomass, co-firing CCS can lead to completely carbon neutral electricity. This is a win-win technology that will allow us to increase our energy security, benefit from our domestic coal and natural resources, and reduce our environmental impact. We need to think innovatively to encourage widespread development and deployment of CCS. Beyond that, legislation I co-authored in 2010 would create funding for research, financial incentives for large-scale deployment, and technology standards for new power plants. There is also great promise in Underground Coal Gasification.
Representative Chris Van Hollen, Maryland–8 (D) and ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, writes:
Energy security requires a reliable, abundant, and affordable supply of energy to meet our needs; sustainability requires that the production and consumption of that energy be consistent with a healthy environment for future generations. As Co-Chair of the bipartisan House Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus, my focus has been on pursuing policies that make meaningfully more efficient use of the energy we currently have while accelerating deployment of cleaner, renewable energy sources for the 21st century. Those policies include a 55-mpg corporate average fuel economy standard by 2025, economy-wide efficiency standards and support for a modern public transportation system – as well as a national renewable electricity standard, the establishment of a Green Bank to provide low-cost financing for qualified clean energy projects and a properly structured tax code.
Representative Henry Waxman, California–30 (D) and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, writes:
I strongly support a market-based policy to promote clean energy, reduce carbon pollution, and address climate change. A rising price on carbon will create incentives for investments and innovation that will reduce emissions, improve energy security, provide certainty to industry, and strengthen our economy. A carbon policy could also raise significant revenue that could be used to reduce our debt.
A carbon policy would help protect Americans from the worst effects of climate change, such as extreme heat waves and droughts. It would level the playing field for clean energy sources like wind and solar. It would spur research into and development of important new technologies, like electric vehicles and carbon capture and storage technologies. And it lessens our dependence on foreign oil.
Fresh Water.Less than one percent of the world's water is liquid fresh water, and scientific studies suggest that a majority of U.S. and global fresh water is now at risk because of increasing consumption, evaporation and pollution. What steps, if any, should the federal government take to secure clean, abundant fresh water for all Americans?
Representative Timothy Bishop, New York State–1 (D) and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, writes:
On Long Island where water quality is a cornerstone of the local economy, I have stood second to none in advancing federal policies to protect our water resources. As the Ranking Member of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee in the House of Representatives, I understand the value of clean water to protect health and sustain the environment. I have led the way in developing policies to promote innovative financing mechanisms for water infrastructure, as well as policies to protect our beaches, rivers and wetlands while better utilizing our waterways to promote tourism, and improve domestic and international commerce.
Efforts to undermine the Clean Water Act and other federal initiatives must be strongly opposed, and I have led the charge against legislative proposals to roll back important clean water protections that may benefit some special interests, but risk public health and will damage the broader U.S. economy.
Representative John Boehner, Ohio–8 (R) and speaker of the House, declined to respond to the eight science questions we asked. We have not found public statements that address fresh water resources as of press time.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, California (D) and chair of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, writes:
All Americans deserve access to reliable, affordable and safe drinking water. To move toward this goal, the federal government must work with local and state governments to make investments in water infrastructure. This means investments in new and expanded reservoirs; levee repairs and flood protection; groundwater storage; desalination; and water reuse. We must also continue to remediate contaminated aquifers—especially those where the federal government contributed to their contamination at former defense facilities—in order to take full advantage of natural groundwater recharge. Not only will these investments provide water supply reliability, but they will also create jobs.
Representative Ralph Hall, Texas–4 (R) and chair of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology, writes:
The U.S. is fortunate to have access to abundant volumes of fresh water resources. From lakes and rivers to enormous aquifers, the supply of fresh water is critical to all aspects of life, including our agricultural, industrial and recreational activities. States and the Federal government share the role of ensuring access to clean and abundant fresh water for all Americans. Continued collaboration and research to monitor water resources and better understand water availability and processes is important to assisting local, State, and Federal decision-makers manage and sustain this vital resource.
Senator Tom Harkin, Iowa (D) and chair of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, writes:
The Clean Water Act, signed into law in 1972, plays a critical role in maintaining the quality of our water resources, and we absolutely must continue its implementation. We must not allow the simplistic calls for decreased regulation to limit the protection of our water resources. This is especially critical in light of our increasing population and economic activities that tend to expand the sources and volumes of potential contaminants.
Senator Mitch McConnell, Kentucky (R) and Senate minority leader, did not respond to the eight science questions by press time. We have not found his public statements that address fresh water resources as of press time.
Representative John Mica, Florida–7 (R) and chair of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, writes:
Again, technology and innovation can solve the fresh water problem.
Representative Nancy Pelosi, California–8 (D) and House minority leader, declined to respond to this question. In 2007, The House approved three clean water bills and Representative Pelosi released a statement on March 9 of that year, an excerpt of which follows:
Today's bill, H.R. 720, funds the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, which provides for low-cost loans to communities that need to repair and build wastewater treatment plants and sewage lines. H.R. 720 will help clean up our rivers, lakes, and coastal waters, so that Americans can fish and swim without fear of pollution.
In recent years, the Republican-led Congress slashed the clean water fund by 34 percent. After the fund expired in 1994, the Republican leadership refused to bring legislation to the floor reauthorizing the fund in an effort to avoid the Davis-Bacon requirement of paying a prevailing wage to workers on federally-funded projects. Today, with Democrats voting unanimously against it, the House defeated a Republican-sponsored amendment to waive Davis-Bacon, ensuring that H.R 720 provides workers who build these wastewater projects good and fair wages.
On Wednesday, the House passed H.R. 569 to provide $1.8 billion in grants to local communities to prevent sewer overflows. In many communities with infrastructure, sewers overflow whenever there is a heavy rain, sending raw sewage into rivers and lakes. On Thursday, the House passed a H.R. 700 setting up a pilot program to increase usable water supplies through water conservation and reuse of wastewater, an approach that is crucial in the arid West and Southwest.
Without new investments in wastewater treatment, we could lose many of the gains our nation has made since the Clean Water Act was passed in 1972.
In conjunction with the creation of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming earlier this week, Democrats are taking our country in a new direction to preserve our environment. This week, we have rededicated ourselves to addressing America's clean water needs.
Senator Harry Reid, Nevada (D) and Senate majority leader, did not respond to the eight science questions by press time. His Web site has information about policies and specific projects the senator has supported related to clean water. There he also writes:
I have been a strong supporter of the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act. These cornerstones of environmental protection have implemented pollution control programs, set water quality standards, and funded waste water treatment facilities in Nevada. Throughout my career in Congress, I have helped provide funding for water system improvements for communities across Nevada. Improving and maintaining the quality of water in Nevada will continue to be one of my highest priorities as Nevada’s senior Senator.
Senator Jay Rockefeller, West Virginia (D) and chair of the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, writes:
Clean water is absolutely essential to daily life and survival. But we are facing a potential global resource crisis as the use of water has increased six-fold while the world's population has only tripled. In areas where water resources are limited we see conflict between multiple needs such as drinking supplies, irrigation and even energy development. At the same time, existing water supplies are being impacted by climate change and overexploitation.
There are no easy solutions to this problem. Water desalinization and treatment is possible but incredibly energy intensive. Conservation needs to be the starting point of the discussion about water policy. Additionally, we need to continue funding research conducted by the Department of Energy into the energy-water nexus and find ways to reduce the water demands of energy production.
Representative Chris Van Hollen, Maryland–8 (D) and ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, writes:
Securing clean, abundant fresh water for all Americans in the 21st century will over the long term require a comprehensive strategy that prioritizes pollution prevention, using our water more efficiently and developing cost-effective technologies to increase our fresh water supply. As regards pollution prevention, we have unfortunately seen an unprecedented effort to weaken and dismantle the Clean Water Act over the past two years, with 31 votes specifically targeting that landmark legislation in the 112th Congress. I strongly oppose efforts to weaken existing safe water standards or undermine the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to enforce water quality rules.
Additionally, as the result of Supreme Court rulings in 2001 and 2006 and guidelines issued by the Bush Administration in 2003 and 2007, 20 million acres of wetlands and 60% of all streams (including those that supply drinking water to 117 million Americans) are without Clean Water Act protections. We need to clarify the original intent of the Clean Water Act to ensure that these essential waterways meet basic safe water standards. In addition to pollution prevention, we need to redouble our efforts at using our water supply more efficiently – whether by eliminating waste or by recycling and re-use where appropriate. Finally, we should invest in developing technologies like desalinization and other filtering processes capable of cost-effectively increasing our fresh water supply.
Representative Henry Waxman, California–30 (D) and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, writes:
Sources of drinking water are a valuable resource that should be protected through full funding and strong enforcement of environmental law. The Safe Drinking Water Act, which ensures that the nation has a safe drinking water supply, should be fully enforced. The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, which can be an important funding mechanism for state source water protection efforts, as well as water treatment, should be reauthorized and fully funded.
We must also ensure that oil and natural gas drilling, including hydraulic fracturing, meet the highest safety standards to protect underground sources of drinking water from potential contamination. Regulations for waste disposal, including the disposal of coal ash, should be strengthened and fully enforced to prevent the creation of new contaminated sites and new threats to drinking water.
The Internet.The Internet plays a central role in both our economy and our society. What role, if any, should the federal government play in managing the Internet to ensure its robust social, scientific, and economic role?
Representative Timothy Bishop, New York State–1 (D) and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, writes:
The Internet is one of the most influential innovations of the last 50 years. It has connected the world in a way no other technology has before it, and it continues to expand access to education and broad access to the international marketplace for entrepreneurs and small businesses.
I strongly support a free and open Internet, as well as strong cybersecurity policies to prevent inappropriate access to sensitive information. With increased access to information, robust intellectual property policies must also keep up with the World Wide Web, and I support efforts to combat online piracy.
Representative John Boehner, Ohio–8 (R) and speaker of the House, declined to respond to the eight science questions we asked. As the House considered four cybersecurity bills, that followed recommendations from the House GOP's Cybersecurity Task Force, Representative Boehner released a joint statement on April 20, 2012:
Cybersecurity attacks are a direct threat to our economy and job creation, as well as our national security. The task force made thoughtful and substantive recommendations, and I’m pleased that our chairmen have worked with our members to move these common-sense, bipartisan bills through their committees through regular order.
The representative opposes "harmful regulations" of the Internet, according to a release dated May 6, 2010:
Calling it a “government takeover of the Internet,” Congressman John Boehner (R-West Chester) blasted the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) new plan to impose job-killing “net neutrality” regulations that will undermine our economy and the success of Internet-related American employers. Boehner released the following statement: “Today’s FCC announcement amounts to a government takeover of the Internet, and yet another government takeover of a large portion of the private sector by the Obama administration. Under this job-killing big government scheme, the Obama administration is seeking to expand the power of the federal government.
"The success of the Internet is a perfect example of what happens when entrepreneurship and innovation are allowed to flourish, but today’s decision will undermine its success and hurt our economy. The American people are asking ‘Where are the jobs?’ They aren’t asking for yet another government takeover that imposes new job-killing federal regulations and puts bureaucrats in charge of the Internet. Congress should listen to the American people and act to reverse this unnecessary federal government power grab.”
NOTE: Last October, Boehner and Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) sent a letter to President Obama saying: “We all share the common goal of restoring America’s economic vitality. The FCC should not undermine that goal by imposing harmful regulations that will delay economic recovery and deprive Americans of faster, more sophisticated broadband services.”
Senator Dianne Feinstein, California (D) and chair of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, writes:
The Internet is playing an ever-increasing role in providing an efficient, democratic venue to share information and ideas in our increasingly interconnected world. As chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I have witnessed firsthand the importance of the Internet in closed societies. We need look no further than recent political revolutions in the Middle East to understand the transformative role that online communication plays, both in terms of organization and dissemination of alternative ideas. The Internet is also invaluable within our own borders as a means of spreading information and facilitating collaboration. I am especially proud to represent Silicon Valley, which continues to push the online envelope and continually redefines how the Internet affects billions of lives.
Representative Ralph Hall, Texas–4 (R) and chair of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology, writes:
The Internet is an incredible engine of economic growth, innovation, and job creation, and accessibility to this important tool of communication and commerce has become integral to the freedom and prosperity of the United States. I support preservation of the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists. Centralized control of the Internet inhibits the organic growth and innovation this domain has historically enjoyed. Government has a responsibility to ensure that there are no barriers to legally-conducted investment and innovation, and to avoid unnecessary interference into the digital marketplace.
I also believe it is essential that we continue to research and develop ways to detect, prevent, resist, respond to, and recover from actions that compromise or threaten to compromise the integrity of the Internet. Strengthening the nation's cybersecurity ensures that we protect American consumers and businesses, thus safeguarding American innovation and competitiveness utilizing the Internet.
Senator Tom Harkin, Iowa (D) and chair of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, writes:
One of the tremendous strengths of the Internet is that is open and free nature encourages innovation and the proliferation of ideas, information, and commerce. Indeed, the innovations spawned by the Internet have revolutionized the way the world does business, dramatically increasing productivity and creating untold millions of jobs.
As a general matter, I believe that government regulation of the Internet has the potential to stifle the very characteristics that have made the Internet such a tremendous benefit to our country and to our economy.At the same time, I am concerned that, in recent years, some network providers have sought to limit or curtail the content of what viewers can access over their networks. While these practices are often legitimate efforts to manage congestion, some providers have gone too far by using unreasonable management practices to limit customer's access to lawful content. Such actions make it more difficult for customers to have readily available access to unfiltered information and services, the hallmark of the Internet. In such circumstances, I do support government efforts to protect a free and open Internet.
Senator Mitch McConnell, Kentucky (R) and Senate minority leader, did not respond to the eight science questions by press time. We have not found public statements in which he addresses the government's role in regulating the Internet as of press time.
Representative John Mica, Florida–7 (R) and chair of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, writes:
The government should not manage the Internet and should resist any burdensome regulations, except for the monitoring for explicitly illegal material. The Federal Government should ensure cybersecurity.
Representative Nancy Pelosi, California–8 (D) and House minority leader, writes:
No longer are we in a world where we must only listen to what others say. We can now create our own content and share it with audiences large and small, so we should worry about anyone who aims to stand in the way of the transmission of free speech -- just as we would worry about someone who would try to block you from telephoning a friend, or using a fax machine to send them a document. That is why I stand with the President and support open Internet protections at the FCC, which empower consumers to enjoy the Internet content of their choice on the devices of their choice.
More airwaves must be dedicated to wireless services, but as reallocate them from other, older uses, we must also ensure spectrum for wireless innovation, like Wi-Fi, and promote spectrum sharing between users. Wi-Fi has been beneficial to consumers, carriers and businesses big and small. The next generations of Wi-Fi won't need federal funding, but they will need government support.
Senator Harry Reid, Nevada (D) and Senate majority leader, did not respond to the eight science questions by press time. His Website states his stance on cybersecurity and expanding broadband access:
Cyber Security. With our economic, military, energy, and transportation infrastructure increasingly becoming “wired,” our nation faces no greater threat in the 21st Century than a major cyber attack. Las Vegas sits on top of one of the largest intersections of fiber-optic networks in the world. A disruption to these networks caused by a major cyber attack could take down the networks of Nevada’s businesses, cause power outages, interrupt financial transactions, and even cause major infrastructure to fail. While the United States has been the world’s leading innovator in developing information technology, our defenses have not kept pace.
That is why I have led a broad Senate effort to pass comprehensive legislation to enhance our nation’s cyber security and give our government the tools it needs to prevent, deter, and respond to cyber attacks. Earlier this year, I joined the chairmen of 7 key committees in introducing the Cyber Security and American Cyber Competitiveness Act of 2011, which lays out a roadmap to improving our nation’s defenses in cyberspace. Building on this effort, I am working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass comprehensive cyber security legislation this Congress.
Expanding Broadband Access. Many areas, particularly rural and low-income communities, continue to lack access to broadband service. It is critical that Nevada's rural areas benefit from the same technological advances that other parts of the country have enjoyed. Significant improvements have been made for providing access to all areas of the country, but more must be done. I led passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act), which provided a total of $7.2 billion for broadband expansion, consisting of $4.7 billion for a newly established Broadband Technology Opportunities Program and $2.5 billion for existing Department of Agriculture broadband programs. These funds will lay the groundwork for a national broadband policy that will seek to reduce or eliminate the "digital divide."
We must also ensure that the next generation is ready to meet the challenges of a global high technology economy. Students increasingly need computer skills to compete for jobs, but too often schools lack the access to technology or teachers lack the training to empower our students with this knowledge. That is why I am a strong supporter of the e-Rate program, which provides discounted Internet access for schools and libraries. This important program has helped improve academic achievement and continues to provide our schools and teachers with the resources to prepare our students for the global economy. In addition, the Recovery Act provided $650 million to expand technology in the classroom and help teachers better incorporate technology into the curriculum.
Senator Jay Rockefeller, West Virginia (D) and chair of the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, writes:
The Internet is the key to our nation's growing digital economy. It has become the essential infrastructure of our day and is how we will grow our economy, expand businesses, foster innovation, increase access to education, improve healthcare, and even transform entertainment in the years to come.
Our country has a strong history of making sure that everyone has access to modern communications networks. In the past, the Federal government's efforts have been focused on working to ensure that all communities were connected to basic telephone service. Now, that the Internet plays such an integral role in our economy, having widespread access to high-speed broadband service will be essential for Americans to compete and to remain at the forefront of global innovation and commerce, especially in science and technology. As a result, the Federal government must work to ensure that every community has access to broadband. That is why I continue to support efforts to refocus the nation's universal service fund program to spur additional broadband deployment. These reforms will direct our resources to expanding Internet access, especially in unserved or underserved areas.
American innovation spurred by the Internet will only abide if we enforce a free and open Internet and ensure strong protections for privacy for persons using the Internet. The Federal government also must retain the ability to enforce key longstanding consumer protections over our new advanced communications networks. Many of the key laws governing our nation's telecommunications must be updated or clarified to reflect our new broadband-centric society, while still maintaining the core values and strong protections on which Americans have come to rely.
The Federal government will also need to review wireless technologies as more and more Americans access the Internet from mobile devices. Earlier this year, Congress passed a law I authored to free up a large amount of wireless spectrum for commercial broadband services. Spectrum is a natural resource that is the lifeblood of the explosive growth we have seen in wireless Internet access services. At the same time, we were able to use revenues from the auction of this spectrum to address a pressing national security and public safety need – the creation of a dedicated nationwide, interoperable wireless broadband network for our first responders.
The Internet and what it has done for our country is unparalleled. But everything that we have accomplished in this Internet age is now vulnerable. When the control systems for our nation's most critical infrastructure—such as nuclear power plants, financial markets, a region's water supply, and hospital ventilation systems—were built, it was impossible to think they would some day be connected to the Internet. This critical infrastructure is now susceptible to cyber attacks from adversaries who can use the Internet to exploit vulnerabilities and cripple our economy or national security. As the Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee and former chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I have worked with senators from both sides to increase our cybersecurity. Our efforts culminated in compromise legislation that would create an incentives-based, voluntary approach that encourages critical infrastructure companies to adopt practices to protect their systems. It would also allow the government and private sector to share threat and vulnerability information, while protecting privacy and civil liberties.
Unfortunately, the Republican leadership sided with beltway lobbyists and the U.S. Chamber of Congress over the professional advice of our nation's military and national security officials, and filibustered the Cybersecurity Act in July 2012. This is yet another example of Congress failing to act on an immediate threat—the FBI Director has said cyber threats will soon overtake conventional terrorism as the top national security concern of the FBI—with legislation that is the result of more than three years of hearings and meetings with the private sector and interest groups and addresses the many concerns of senators.
President Obama is now considering an executive order that would include most of our bill's provisions but would not be able to extend incentives such as liability protection to those companies that implement voluntary standards. I commend his decision to protect the nation from cyber attacks in the face of opposition and share his belief that even with an executive order, there will remain a need for legislation to fully address our cyber vulnerabilities. In other words, the Internet has raised us up in many ways, and it can also destroy us due to inexcusable inattention to cybersecurity.
Representative Chris Van Hollen, Maryland–8 (D) and ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, writes:
The federal government has a limited but important role to play regarding the Internet. Because the 21st century economy is increasingly an information economy, I believe the federal government should pursue policies designed to eliminate the “digital divide” so that every American, every business, and every student has access to broadband. Additionally, for the Internet to continue to flourish, the federal government must strike an appropriate balance between the protection of intellectual property and fair use. Identity theft, fraud, and other criminal activity must be policed on the Internet as vigorously as it is offline. Finally, it has become increasingly clear that the federal government, in partnership with the private sector, must increase our vigilance in the area of cybersecurity and the protection of the nation's critical infrastructure.
Representative Henry Waxman, California–30 (D) and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, writes:
The federal government played an important role in the development of the Internet through funding by the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency and the National Science Foundation. To the extent possible, the federal government should continue to foster innovation by investing in research and development for the broadband ecosystem, including networks, equipment, and applications, so the United States can continue to be a leader in the global broadband economy.
In 2010, the Federal Communications Commission adopted a set of sensible rules to preserve the open Internet by limiting the ability of broadband providers to act as Internet gatekeepers and decide what content their subscribers can access. By ensuring an open and transparent Internet, the federal government can provide the regulatory certainty necessary for investments in Internet infrastructure and the proliferation of e-commerce.
The U.S. government is now engaged in preliminary negotiations on a treaty known as the International Telecommunication Regulations, which will be taken up by the World Conference on International Telecommunications in December. The federal government has a crucial role to play in resisting efforts by some countries to encourage centralized control of the Internet. We need to ensure that the Internet remains a tool for the global dissemination of ideas, information, and commerce, without interference from any government.
Science in Public Policy.We live in an era when science and technology affect every aspect of life and society, and so must be included in well-informed public policy decisions. How will you ensure that policy and regulatory decisions are fully informed by the best available scientific and technical information, and that the public is able to evaluate the basis of these policy decisions?
Representative Timothy Bishop, New York State–1 (D) and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, writes:
During these times of shrinking budgets, data driven decisions are critical to ensure that scarce federal resources are used effectively. To that end, maximizing transparency, encouraging public participation, and relying on the best science available is essential to developing and executing good public policies. I strongly support efforts to ensure that the legislative and regulatory processes are open to public scrutiny and uphold the strongest scientific principles.
Representative John Boehner, Ohio–8 (R) and speaker of the House, declined to respond to the eight science questions. Given the specific nature of this question on science in public policy, we have not found related public statements as of press time.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, California (D) and chair of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, writes:
I believe public policy should be based on the best science available. Whether the policies are related to the economy, health care, the environment or any other area, politics should not interfere with science. One example is medical research, which I believe must be the foundation for improving health care and producing innovative and more cost-effective treatments. I have long been a proponent for biomedical research and believe such efforts hold tremendous promise to revolutionize health care, not to mention create jobs and bolster the economy. Science must drive public policy as much as possible, and I will continue to act on that belief.
Representative Ralph Hall, Texas–4 (R) and chair of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology, writes:
Ensuring transparency of and access to relevant scientific and technical data should be a core principle of Federal regulatory and policy-making processes. For the public to be able to evaluate policy decisions that are based on scientific information, this information must first be accessible to the public. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has paid lip service to these ideals, while in practice demonstrating a willingness to make decisions based on flawed, outcome-driven, and often secret science in order to pursue its out-of-control regulatory agenda.
For example, the courts recently struck down the flawed and potentially disastrous Cross State Air Pollution Rule, a regulatory action that would have destroyed jobs in my home state of Texas and was based solely on a proprietary "black box model" built on technical input and assumptions kept hidden from stakeholders and the public. Similarly, as the Chairman of the Science Committee, I have listened as witnesses testified that the primary data used to justify most EPA air regulations remains unavailable to the public, kept in secret and shielded from scientific scrutiny. Unfortunately, rules and regulations promulgated by the Obama Administration threaten American jobs and economic recovery, and cost billions while providing questionable benefits; yet these rules cannot be properly evaluated because their underlying assumptions and projections are based on secret data and models hidden from the public.
Senator Tom Harkin, Iowa (D) and chair of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, writes:
I agree that science and technology are pervasive in our lives and society today, and I am distressed with the ignorance or even denial of critical scientific findings in some instances of policy formulation. The most important answer is better science and technology education at all levels, especially in our schools and through our media. I applaud those scientists who strive to add effective public communication to their professional duties, and those educators who are leading the charge for expanding and improving S&T education at all levels.
Senator Mitch McConnell, Kentucky (R) and Senate minority leader, did not respond to the eight science questions by press time. Given the specific nature of this question on science in public policy, we have not found related public statements as of press time.
Representative John Mica, Florida–7 (R) and chair of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, writes:
We can ensure that the best scientific data and technologies are used in public policy decisions by maintaining our free and open society and press and by drawing on the best available public and private sector resources. Public input and evaluation remains fundamental to the health of our democracy. We must maintain an educated and informed public and continue to expand transparency.
Representative Nancy Pelosi, California–8 (D) and House minority leader, declined to respond to this question. Given the specific nature of this question on science in public policy, we have not found related public statements as of press time.
Senator Harry Reid, Nevada (D) and Senate majority leader, did not respond to the eight science questions by press time. Given the specific nature of this question on science in public policy, we have not found related public statements as of press time.
Senator Jay Rockefeller, West Virginia (D) and chair of the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, writes:
Collaboration between our leading experts in science and technology and Congress and federal agencies is the only way that public policy decisions will be made using sound science. The work we perform on the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee reaches across many disciplines. When drafting policy or regulations, we need to solicit advice from a spectrum of experts—from universities, nonprofits, industry, or scientific and professional societies—who deal in the issues every day.
For example, the National Academy of Sciences, the Innocence Project, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Washington Post, and many others have all called for strengthened forensic science and standards. We met with many stakeholders and scientific experts to determine best practices to bring twenty-first century advancements in technology and testing to forensic science. The result of this effort was the Forensic Science and Standards Act, which would direct the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to develop forensic science standards in consultation with standards development organizations. The standards would be implemented by a committee comprised of research scientists, forensic science practitioners, and members of the legal and law enforcement agencies, along with the Attorney General and the Director of NIST, to ensure they adhere to science-based priorities. The process we went through to develop the legislation is an example of how Congress can work directly with experts to create policy based on the latest scientific and technological information.
At the same time, the scientific integrity of agencies should remain sacrosanct. Scientific and technical information plays a significant role in the development of public policy, making it important that the scientific advice provided to policymakers is both impartial and of the highest integrity. In 2009, the President, through the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), required that each agency develop a scientific integrity policy specific to their agency mission and needs. The goal is to ensure that technical rigor and transparency are maintained while protecting science from political interference across administrations. Since 2009, more than 20 federal agencies have submitted drafts to OSTP for review and release for public comment. In February, OSTP announced that it had completed its review of scientific integrity policies submitted by the agencies and found that each one met or exceeded the minimum requirements.
Representative Chris Van Hollen, Maryland–8 (D) and ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, writes:
I believe that scientific discovery and technology should lay the foundation for our policy and regulatory decision-making. It is critical that our national research agencies support independent, high quality scientific research and make use of extensive peer-review and evaluation processes. As Congress develops public policy, I will continue to engage and seek counsel from our world class scientists and technicians working at the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Institute on Standards and Technology, and other federal agencies. Throughout this process, I'm committed to sharing information with the public, facilitating meaningful dialogue, and providing an opportunity for feedback on policy proposals.
Representative Henry Waxman, California–30 (D) and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, writes:
Effective policies must be informed by the best scientific and technical information available. When policymakers reject the science, the result is bad policy. Unfortunately, science-denial seems to be the norm on Capitol Hill these days.
The Republican denial of climate change science is a prime example of this irresponsible approach. According to the eminent scientific journal Nature, members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee have taken positions on climate change that are "fundamentally anti-science" and the result of "willful ignorance," making it "hard to escape the conclusion that the U.S. Congress has entered the intellectual wilderness." Notwithstanding the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and is a serious threat, House Republicans unanimously supported a bill, H.R. 910, to overturn EPA's scientific finding that climate change endangers public health and welfare. During the floor debate on H.R. 910, I offered an amendment that stated, "Congress accepts the scientific findings of the Environmental Protection Agency that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for public health and welfare." All but one House Republican voted to reject these scientific findings.
Many House Republicans explained their rejection of EPA's scientific findings by stating their view that the science is "not settled." At the same time, House Republicans have voted to cut funding for climate research that could provide more insight into the pace and likely impacts of climate change. They have also refused to hold hearings to better understand the overwhelming body of existing scientific evidence showing that climate change is occurring.
Policymakers cannot address serious problems such as climate change by denying their existence. Congress should be holding hearings with the nation's top scientists to understand the problems we face so that we can design sensible policies to tackle those problems. I have repeatedly requested these hearings. So far, the Republican leaders I have written have not even bothered to respond. It is a deplorable record.