[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 25 (Thursday, February 6, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H543-H547]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rulli). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 3, 2025, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring attention to an issue that
should concern all Americans.
This evening, in this Special Order, we will be talking about
scientific integrity. To be a problem solver today, I believe it is
important for leaders to embrace scientific integrity, and we will talk
about that throughout the course of the next hour.
Every day, our Nation's scientists are making vital contributions to
our public health, economy, and national security.
Modern society as we know it is only possible due to Federal
investments in everything from medical research and food safety to
severe weather forecasting and pollution reduction. These contributions
extend far beyond our own borders, lifting up people all over the world
through life-changing scientific breakthroughs and innovations.
Under normal circumstances, federally funded scientists could often
avoid the noise and clamor of public political debates. As the world
has seen over the last 2\1/2\ weeks, the Trump administration is
anything but normal.
The President and his billionaire cronies took no time at all to
begin attacking our world-renowned institutions that support publicly
funded science.
They are shamelessly attempting to destroy the visionary ideals of
great leaders like President Franklin Roosevelt, who created the
Federal Office of Scientific Research and Development during the Second
World War. The creation of this office led to untold advancements in
radar technology and nuclear energy, becoming a roadmap for our
government to advance independent, fundamental, and necessary
scientific knowledge for the benefit of all.
After the war, our government treated science as a necessary answer
to clear and present threats. Today that is not the case. Federal
research and development are primary targets of political attacks from
this administration.
Science is no longer the answer but a direct threat to the cruel,
backward, and barbaric Trump-Musk agenda. We can only look at the
President's first term in office to know how his administration will
treat the scientific community.
What exactly is on the table here? What is at stake? It is scientific
integrity.
``Scientific integrity,'' as defined by the National Science and
Technology Council, ``is the adherence to professional practices,
ethical behavior, and the principles of honesty and objectivity when
conducting, managing, using the results of, and communicating about
science and scientific activities.''
Inclusivity, transparency, and protection from inappropriate
influence are hallmarks of scientific integrity. Integrity in research
is essential--essential--for maintaining scientific excellence and
keeping the public's trust.
It is true that administrations from both parties may have violated
scientific integrity at some point during their time in office, but the
first Trump term exceeded them all with well over 150 reported attacks
on science. They suppressed studies, altered reports, interfered in
scientific processes, ignored concerns, refused to adopt scientifically
backed guidelines, and politicized health assessments.
The level of damage from these attacks was, indeed, staggering and
affected every single agency that employs science in its decisionmaking
process.
That is why, as an engineer myself, I have consistently made it one
of my top priorities in Congress to right the ship of America's science
policy because science lives at the very core of a healthy democracy.
As part of that broad effort, I am proud to lead the bipartisan
Scientific Integrity Act, which was reintroduced today alongside my
dear friends and colleagues, Representative Lofgren, Representative
Beyer, Representative Bonamici, and Representative Stevens, and over
100 original cosponsors.
This legislation establishes consistent scientific integrity policies
across all agencies so that scientists, Members of Congress, and the
American people can put their faith in Federal research findings.
Thanks to the efforts of the Biden administration, more than 28
Federal agencies have some form of scientific integrity policy today,
but standards remain inconsistent.
America's most important science is conducted, reviewed, communicated
to the public, and incorporated into policymaking in ways that must be
transparent and free from inappropriate political, ideological,
financial, and other undue influences.
My colleagues and I are fighting to ensure that sound, evidence-based
policy is always readily available for policymakers and that scientists
and advisers should never feel threatened to speak the truth.
This is a critical moment.
America is facing unprecedented challenges in the form of a rapidly
changing climate, environmental contamination, and countless other
concerns that threaten our public health, national security, and
general welfare. We cannot afford to let the integrity of our
scientific enterprise be demolished.
The Trump administration and Elon Musk are direct threats to U.S.
scientific leadership on the global stage. My colleagues and I will
highlight many of the most recent and egregious violations of
scientific integrity by this new administration.
From removing data and censoring research at the CDC to the
politicization of career scientists across government, this
administration has once again made it clear that they do not care about
scientific integrity.
They do not care about our national security or competing with China.
They do not care about saving American lives threatened by the
climate crisis.
They do not care about public health or ensuring the safety and well-
being of families from the threat of the deadly viruses that we have
seen, like COVID-19.
The scientific knowledge we carry forward is critical for our
continued survival, even as its validity is being questioned at a scale
unprecedented in modern history.
America has both the skill and the structure to develop the knowledge
that we need. Thankfully, many are rising to the defense of scientific
integrity, and the reality is that this should not be a partisan issue.
Over the many years that I have led this bill, my colleagues across
the aisle have been more than willing to join the effort. It passed out
of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee back in the 116th
Congress with overwhelming support from both parties.
I like to think that we all recognize how important sound science is
to
[[Page H544]]
making any sort of progress in our great Nation. Indeed, a tremendous
amount of progress was made under the last administration.
It is in the interest of all Members of this body, from every
district across our country, to support scientific integrity and to
support the outstanding scientific talent who come from all over the
Nation and globe to do research right here in our Federal agencies or
with federally funded grants or at our world-class academic
institutions.
I hope that my colleagues across the aisle hear this and understand
what is at stake. Decades of repair will be necessary to undo the
damage that has already been done.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from the Eighth District of
Virginia (Mr. Beyer), my good friend.
Don is a member of the Ways and Means Committee, but the gentleman is
also an active person who is working for improvement as it relates to
scientific integrity. We appreciate his sponsorship of the bill and his
work to drive soundness and reflection of science in all of our policy
discussions.
I thank the gentleman for joining us.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Tonko for his leadership, for
putting this together, and for leading this bill year after year.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the Trump
administration's unconscionable and irresponsible attacks on America's
scientific integrity.
The very foundation of our success as a world power has been our
scientific prowess, and now, the Trump administration is threatening to
undermine that success.
That is why I am here to talk about our bill with Representative Paul
Tonko, the Scientific Integrity Act, and to defend the very foundation
of what makes America a global leader: our scientific leadership and
infrastructure.
I am proud to represent the National Science Foundation here in
Alexandria, Virginia, the very heart of Virginia. The NSF is an
incredible resource and institution. It was established in 1950 by
Congress as an independent agency to promote scientific advancement in
America. For 75 years, it has repeatedly accomplished that goal.
NSF has helped to keep the U.S. at the forefront of scientific
discovery. It helped catalyze the internet and develop the technology
for MRI machines and 3D printing machines. It helped to create the
``Dictionary of American Sign Language on Linguistic Principles,''
detected gravitational waves, developed LASIK eye surgery, and much,
much more.
Over its lifetime, the National Science Foundation supported over
350,000 scientists, and of this number, 262 have won Nobel Prizes.
Trump has already begun unprecedented attacks on the scientific
community with purges of NSF workers and grants, scientific advisers,
and the broader scientific workforce.
I strongly oppose these efforts to target the National Science
Foundation and weaken one of the guiding lights that makes America
strong.
I am also deeply concerned about this new era of censorship in
science. NSF employees were given this list of words to look for in
grants and flag them for possible termination. This, by the way, is
only a sampling of the words. It is much longer.
Mr. Speaker, I invite all who are watching to take a look at this
list right next to me. This is just a portion of the full list, but it
is a representative sample.
Oh, wait. I can't use ``representative.'' It is on the list.
What is most frustrating to me is that many of these words are just
standard words used in basic science.
Why the censorship? I thought Republicans hated the cancel culture.
This list contains ``women'' and ``female,'' but no mention of
``men'' or ``male.'' My Republican friends have been telling me that
there are only two genders, but now that we can't speak the word
``woman,'' are we down to just one?
There is ``black'' and ``indigenous'' on this list, but no ``white.''
It is very clear that the only identity not censored is mine, but why
does being a woman or being part of a Tribe make one ineligible for
science? Why is the Trump administration attacking Tribal communities?
I also don't understand this censorship of indigenous communities. It
is also clear that the person who wrote this list has never been a
scientist. It is ill-fitting, unwise, and actively harmful for
scientific purposes.
The inclusion of many of these words, like ``bias,'' ``included,'' or
``excluded,'' clearly shows that none of the people in charge of this
list were scientists. If they were, they would know that many of these
words are commonly used in scientific papers.
Mr. Speaker, imagine being a grant applicant applying to develop the
newest MRI technology or to develop a new drug locally, or being on the
precipice of discovering a new gene in a plant or about to be taking
pictures of two black holes for the first time. Imagine that this is
someone's life's work.
Now, imagine having to comb through a proposal or dissertation, the
work of months or years, just to find every instance of words that
don't belong there.
It doesn't matter if the instance of the word ``polarization'' refers
to the magnetic field on an MRI machine instead of political
polarization.
It doesn't matter if the use of the word ``indigenous'' is referring
to an indigenous plant or if ``activism'' refers to the state of an
enzyme or ``inclusion'' or ``excluded'' refers to the statistical
analysis of the variables used. It also doesn't matter if ``black''
refers to the black hole being studied.
The study is now going to be flagged by Trump's immature and
sometimes, we learned today, even blatantly racist cronies at DOGE, who
built a flowchart on how to handle these words. They want to find any
way to terminate the program regardless of intent.
{time} 1815
The fact that these commonly used words are on this list indicates a
lack of consideration of basic science. Someone should have spent more
time in high school chemistry, physics, or biology class.
The list also indicates that the Trump administration is sending NSF
on an internal manhunt, one that will waste an incredible amount of
time and energy that could be much better used on advancing science.
If this list forces scientists to rewrite papers to avoid or minimize
use of the words found on this arbitrary list, it further delays our
already long grant process and then it hurts science.
If this list delays a drug's development or incredible discoveries
that keep America at the forefront of scientific development, then it
hurts science.
If scientists are interrogated by DOGE to determine if their use of
polarization refers to a scientific principle or a political principle,
then it hurts science.
If our scientists have to seriously reconsider whether they even want
to apply for the grant in the first place, then it hurts science.
If NSF is discouraged from hiring or giving grants to any scientist
except White, non-Hispanic men, well, we shouldn't expect many Nobel
Prizes in the future.
If this treatment of our science and our scientists escalates and
pushes scientists out of America or out of the field, then it only
hurts our economy, hurts our country, and it helps China.
It is time to stop this madness and protect the American success
story, and that is why I am here today, to decry these attacks on
America, our science, and the National Science Foundation. That is why
our Scientific Integrity Act is so important.
This bill would call on agencies to develop scientific integrity
standards. We need scientists, not corrupt industry hacks, leading our
future.
We need scientists who seek the truth rather than those who are paid
to produce studies that help the businesses who pay them.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join us on the Scientific
Integrity Act and act now to protect America's international
leadership.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Beyer for joining us
in this fight and for his very challenging observations that he has
shared. His activism on behalf of this bill and science, in general, is
most appreciated.
Mr. Speaker, within the first few weeks of the Trump administration,
we
[[Page H545]]
have seen an onslaught of attacks on scientists, on science, and
evidence-based decisionmaking.
At the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention alone, we have seen
public communications halted, critical datasets made inaccessible, and
scientific manuscripts purged of terms deemed to invoke so-called
gender ideology.
CDC researchers were instructed to remove references to or mentions
of a list of forbidden terms such as: gender, transgender, pregnant
person, pregnant people, LGBT, transsexual, nonbinary, assigned male at
birth, assigned female at birth, biologically male, biologically
female.
Now, this effort to scrub scientific terms, erase demographic data,
and silence researchers is not just wrong; it is dangerous.
Health disparities exist. The data proves it. Ignoring those
disparities, preventing experts from studying them will not make them
disappear. It will only make our response to crises weaker, less
effective, and certainly less equitable.
When we can't track racial and ethnic disparities, gender, and sexual
orientation in health outcomes, we lose the ability to make informed,
evidence-based decisions.
Doctors and policymakers rely on clear, unaltered data to guide their
work. Without it, we risk failing in the fight against public health
crises like HIV, mpox, and maternal mortality.
Let me be clear: This is not just about words on a website. This is
about access to lifesaving information.
It is about whether we allow science to function as it should or
whether we allow political interference to dictate what truths we can
or cannot acknowledge.
I urge all of my colleagues, this administration, and all who value
truth in science to push back against this alarming trend.
Scientific integrity must be protected not just for our research
community but for the millions of Americans whose health and well-being
certainly depend on it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster), a
good friend, and a very active, outspoken, bold voice for scientific
integrity, he represents Illinois' 11th District, and is a member of
the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Tonko for holding
this Special Order hour on preserving scientific integrity.
Mr. Speaker, I am a scientist. For 25 years before entering Congress,
I worked at Fermi National Accelerator Labs, smashing protons and
antiprotons together to make particles that have not been around since
the Big Bang.
If you are a scientist and you stand up and deliberately say
something that you know is not true or if you publish something
fraudulent, it is a career-ending move. You will lose your position.
Nobody will publish your papers. You are done. It should be that way,
frankly, in politics.
The reason that we scientists take truthfulness so seriously is that
we are always operating on the frontiers of what is scientifically
known. We are always operating with statistically incomplete datasets,
with partially confirmed hypotheses, and defining the next experiments
to perform to get to the next level of scientific truth.
So we scientists simply cannot tolerate the additional uncertainty of
whether or not the person that we are listening to is deliberately
lying or even hiding parts of what they know to be the scientific
truth.
That is why it is so corrosive and demeaning when the Trump
administration orders scientists to suppress their best understanding
of the scientific truth, forcing scientists to choose between either
their scientific integrity or potentially their jobs.
As the Trump administration has already made it clear that they will
continue to undermine science and dismiss evidence-based policies, this
discussion could not come at a more important time.
Unfortunately, the situation is not new. During the first Trump
administration, as chair of the House Science, Space, and Technology
Committee's Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, one of the
first hearings that I held was on the damage done to our Nation's
scientific enterprise by the President's policies.
The statistics were concerning. There were significant losses in key
STEM positions at the Department of Energy, the Environmental
Protection Agency, NOAA, including a 20 percent reduction in the
Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy, something that
Republicans claim to support.
Far too often, a scientist's expertise was simply ignored or their
motives were questioned or their work was dismissed or censored.
Unsurprisingly, this resulted in the hemorrhaging of career
scientists of all different backgrounds from our Federal workforce and
from the university programs that they supported. Often, these talented
scientists left for better offers in the private sector.
The departure of so much scientific talent and institutional
knowledge from the government and from our universities represents a
permanent, competitive disadvantage for the United States.
The responsibility, once again, falls on lawmakers like myself and my
colleagues to protect the funding and the scientific freedom of speech
that drives scientific advancement. It is our duty to ensure that
regardless of the political climate, science remains at the forefront
of our Nation's progress and innovation. Even as Trump continues his
onslaught of executive orders that neglect scientific fact, I know that
many of my sensible colleagues on the other side of the aisle would not
want to see the U.S. fall behind in this era of rapid technological
innovation.
That is precisely what we risk if we do not continue to fund and
support the scientists at our Federal agencies and the scientific
programs that they support around the country.
At the same time, we must also make sure that we support scientists
of all different backgrounds, including those who come to the U.S. for
their education and want to stay and contribute their skills to our
economy.
During my two decades at Fermi National Accelerator Lab, some of the
brightest and most accomplished scientists and engineers that I had the
privilege to work with came from foreign countries. In one circumstance
that still makes me angry, we lost one of our best and brightest
through LGBT intolerance in our immigration policies.
I know firsthand that Trump's dangerous rhetoric against diversity in
our Federal workforce threatens the very foundation of what fuels U.S.
innovation. Both Democrats and Republicans actually recognize this
truth.
My Keep STEM Talent Act, which would effectively staple a green card
to a graduate degree for international STEM students who study at a
U.S. university, received bipartisan support with multiple Republican
cosponsors.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my sensible colleagues on the other side of the
aisle to support efforts like this and increase the resiliency of our
Federal workforce and help defend our Nation's competitive edge in the
face of these growing threats.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, we appreciate Mr. Foster's participation this
evening and for his work as a scientist, engaging all of us in the
importance of having unadulterated science policy and science research
done so that we can move forward with a pure truth and science-based
and evidence-based discussion.
Mr. Speaker, so scientific integrity, or the lack thereof, has its
consequences.
Once again, we are witnessing a troubling pattern: Science and public
health experts are being sidelined.
The decision to purge members of the EPA's Science Advisory Board and
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee is nothing short of a setback
for scientific integrity.
These panels exist to provide statutorily required, independent,
science-driven public health reviews, not to serve as a revolving door
for political agendas.
History has shown us what happens when we weaken those advisory
bodies by replacing well-respected academic experts with
representatives that are financially tied to regulated industries.
The last time a similar purge took place, key air quality standards
were delayed and polluters were given a pass. And who suffers? Children
with asthma, seniors with heart and lung
[[Page H546]]
disease, and communities already burdened by pollution suffer.
Let's be clear: Sound science is the foundation upon which we built
public health protections.
Just last year, based on expert recommendations from the CASAC, EPA
strengthened fine particle pollution standards for the first time in
over a decade.
The reason was simple: The science was sound.
Fine particulate matter from sources like fossil fuel combustion and
wildfires is directly linked to lung disease, heart attacks, and
premature death.
The evidence demanded action and public health won, but now that
progress is at risk. This move sends a dangerous message that politics
matters more than science and that corporate interests carry more
weight than public health.
That simply is unacceptable. The American people deserve clean air
and strong environmental protections grounded in facts, not the whims
of special interests.
I will not stand by while scientific integrity is undermined, expert
voices are silenced, and our Nation's environmental safeguards are
eroded.
I will continue fighting to ensure that science, not politics, guides
our policies and that the health and well-being of our communities
remain the top priority.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), a
good friend and colleague, who is a bold voice on the Science, Space,
and Technology Committee.
Congresswoman Bonamici from Oregon's First District has been
preaching scientific integrity for a long while, and we appreciate her
joining us this evening.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Tonko for his
leadership on this important issue.
I have been on the Committee of Science, Space, and Technology since
I joined Congress 13 years ago, Mr. Speaker.
It has been so inspiring to meet and hear from some of the Nation's,
and sometimes the world's, leading scientists.
Today, I rise in defense of science and scientific integrity and in
defense of truth. I rise in defense of the hardworking scientists and
researchers who dedicate their careers to keeping our country safe, our
economy strong, and our future secure.
The assault that is happening right now at our Federal science
agencies is appalling and dangerous, and it must be stopped.
The Trump administration, working hand in hand with Elon Musk and his
shadowy group of hackers calling itself the Department of Government
Efficiency, or DOGE, is dismantling the critical programs that protect
clean air and water, grow the economy, and save American lives.
Experienced and talented scientists at NOAA and the National Science
Foundation are being demeaned and threatened with termination.
Communications have been disrupted and critical research has been
stalled. This is not just an attack on these individuals; it is an
attack on the very foundation of our Nation's scientific enterprise. It
is also affecting higher education. There is a lot of research being
done in higher education with NSF grants.
{time} 1830
It is not efficiency. It is not reform. It is sabotage. For what? Is
it to silence the truth about the fact that climate change is real and
poses a serious threat? Is it to give billionaires more control over
public institutions? Is it to gut the research that drives American
innovation at a time when China and the EU and the rest of the world
are making moves to surge ahead?
My home State of Oregon received more than $370 million in Federal
research grants last year. That funding supported groundbreaking
research into cleaner, cheaper energy, earthquake and tsunami warning
systems, and wildfire prevention. That funding is now in jeopardy
because Donald Trump has unlawfully and unconstitutionally halted
Federal research dollars.
That means stalled renewable energy innovation. It means fewer tools
to combat wildfires. It means fewer jobs in the growing industries that
help our State and country thrive.
I want to follow up on the remarks that Mr. Beyer made recently and
all the words that are going to trigger this review. ``Women'' but not
``men''? ``Disability,'' ``advocacy,'' ``institutional,'' ``barrier''?
What if someone is doing research on the Great Barrier Reef? Are they
going to be denied their funding?
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing woke, DEI, or radical about predicting
the next devastating earthquake or tsunami, detecting a wildfire before
it spreads, or protecting ocean health to support our coastal and
fishing economies.
Demonizing committed scientists is shameful. Impairing decades of
lifesaving research because it might help communities on the front
lines of the climate crisis is derelict. Infiltrating Federal agencies
with unelected hackers and rescinding lawfully appropriated funds is
illegal.
Is this what happens when we have a lawless, science-denying,
vindictive person in the White House? I tell you, we won't stand for
it.
Oregon's coastal communities rely on NOAA for fisheries management,
ocean health monitoring, and storm forecasting. Without it, livelihoods
and lives are at risk.
Let me be crystal clear: Silencing scientists doesn't stop
hurricanes. Firing researchers doesn't stop rising sea levels. Blocking
climate data doesn't change the fact that last year was the hottest
year in recorded history.
The United States has long been the world leader in scientific
innovation. We led the space race. We mapped the human genome. We
pioneered the technology that powers the global economy. Today, under
this administration's reckless interference, we are watching that
leadership slip away, our scientific edge erode, and America's future
be sold off to the highest bidder.
This is frustrating. I just read that the National Cryptologic Museum
just taped sheets of paper over plaques that celebrated women and
people of color who served honorably in the National Security Agency.
That is absurd and demeaning.
The assault on science demands action. What is happening now is not
leadership or patriotism. It is corruption.
I truly hope that my Republican colleagues who for years have
recognized the value of Federal science agencies and advocated for
their investment will join me in speaking out against this reckless
attack on scientists and science. Congress must reassert its
constitutional authority to guard the science agencies it authorized
and the funds it has appropriated from political corrosion.
Public data, peer review, and a diverse research workforce are the
cornerstones of the U.S. science enterprise. Yes, I said ``diverse.''
Politically driven propaganda masquerading as science, like we saw
during the first Trump administration--remember Sharpiegate--erodes
public trust and damages scientific credibility.
Mr. Speaker, we must protect the integrity of our Federal science
agencies. The world is watching. We must restore funding to the
research that drives our economy. It is a lot of the basic research
that then goes into advanced research in the private sector. We must
hold those who undermine scientific integrity accountable, no matter
how powerful they think they are.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Bonamici for joining
us this evening but, more importantly, for her work on science, tech,
and space as a committee member and for her leadership in fighting for
scientific integrity.
Earlier, Mr. Speaker, I made mention of ongoing censorship at the
Centers for Disease Control. We are seeing climate-related information
targeted in other agencies, too. It is not just targeting CDC. We are
seeing climate-related information disappearing from government sites,
from NASA to the Department of Agriculture.
This isn't just about tweaking websites. It is a deliberate effort to
erase essential data that researchers, farmers, businesses, and
communities across the country rely on. We have seen this playbook
before. The Trump administration is once again using the same tactics
from its first term, removing climate language, pausing programs, and
undermining science.
Take the USDA's Partnership for Climate-Smart Commodities, for
example.
[[Page H547]]
It is a program designed to help advance sustainable practices. It has
funded critical work with food companies, nonprofits, and universities
to help farmers shrink their carbon footprint, develop more resilient
crops, and restore land. By halting programs like this, the
administration is stripping our agricultural sector of the very tools
it needs to withstand worsening floods, droughts, and wildfires.
We cannot afford to turn back. We cannot allow climate denial to
override science. The cost of inaction is already upon us.
In just the last few years, extreme weather has wiped out entire
peach crops in Georgia, flooded farms in North Carolina, and worsened
citrus greening disease in the Florida oranges crop. Wildfires in the
West have devastated vineyards, while droughts have forced ranchers to
shrink their herds.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues and this administration to reject
this dangerous retreat from science. We must defend the data, research,
and progress for which we have fought because, in the case of a
worsening climate crisis, denial is just not irresponsible, but it,
indeed, is deadly.
Scientists knew that change was coming under the Trump
administration, but few were prepared for the chaos and fear caused by
a flurry of executive orders and policy shifts that have destabilized
the American engine for innovation and discovery. Overnight,
researchers were left questioning whether their work, funding, or even
careers could survive a political assault on science itself.
This is not an abstract concern. It is an existential threat to our
Nation's scientific enterprise.
Scientists should be focused on their next breakthrough, not their
next paycheck. They should be in the lab, not fighting for the right to
pursue knowledge free from political interference.
Instead, we see confusion, delays, and outright fear gripping our
research institutions. Postdoctoral fellows are scrambling to pay their
bills because their stipends have been frozen.
Research projects essential to public health, economic prosperity,
and national security are being reviewed not for their scientific merit
but for whether they contain words like ``diversity,'' ``women,'' or
``underrepresented.''
Our United States has long been a beacon of research excellence
because we uphold principles that transcend politics. We have built a
system that rewards rigorous peer-reviewed research, fosters a diverse
and dynamic workforce, and keeps American innovation at the forefront
globally.
Those principles are now under attack. We cannot allow political
ideology to dictate which discoveries are pursued and which are
silenced. We cannot allow critical research--whether on climate change,
public health, or emerging technologies--to be derailed by shortsighted
political mandates. We certainly cannot allow the United States to cede
its leadership in science and technology to competitors that are eager
to capitalize on our self-inflicted wounds.
The CHIPS and Science Act, which I was proud to support, underscores
our commitment to a broad, inclusive, and merit-based research
enterprise. It recognizes that diversity is not a threat to science; it
is a strength. The next great discovery, the next cure, the next
technological revolution could come from any lab, any researcher, any
corner of this country. I truly believe the pioneer spirit is really in
our DNA as a nation, but only if we let science be science.
I stand with the scientific community in calling for the protection
of scientific integrity and the rejection of any effort that seeks to
muzzle, manipulate, or politicize research.
We must ensure that American scientists can continue to push the
boundaries of human knowledge, free from fear and with full confidence
that their government stands behind them.
I ask again, Mr. Speaker, that people join us in this effort for the
Scientific Integrity Act to be passed in this House, moved to the
Senate, and signed into law. It is about the strength of our Nation,
the future of discovery, and, again, honoring the pioneer spirit of
America.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Schmidt). Members are reminded to
refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
____________________