Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I offer an amendment on behalf of me and my colleague, Congressman Scott Garrett, who is my Republican co-chair of the Payer State Caucus, which is a group of Members opposed to the massive transfer of wealth between one set of States to another.

This amendment is a very simple one that would prohibit any of the funds in this bill from being used in the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, otherwise known as EPSCoR. EPSCoR was started in 1978 as an experimental program in the hopes of strengthening research infrastructure in areas of the country that receive less than their fair share, however defined.

As a scientist and as an American, I think this goal is commendable, but the implementation of this program--and, in particular, the formulas used to earmark grants to a specific set of States--is absurd. The ability to participate in EPSCoR opportunities is based solely on whether or not a State has received less than 0.75 percent of the NSF research funding in the previous 3 years. Let me reiterate that. The Department of Energy's EPSCoR eligibility is determined by how much NSF research funding a given State has received in the previous 3 years.

There is no rational basis for earmarking a grant program in one area of spending based on the spending in another unrelated program. Moreover, because EPSCoR considers the funding on a per-State basis rather than on a per capita basis, it has devolved into just another one of the many programs that steers money into States that already get far more than their fair share of Federal spending.

EPSCoR is emblematic of a larger problem we have in this country. Every year, hundreds of billions of dollars are transferred out of States that pay far more in Federal taxes than they receive back in Federal spending--the payer States--and into States that receive a lot more Federal spending than they pay back in taxes--the taker States. In the case of Illinois, our economy loses $40 billion a year because we pay far more in Federal taxes than we receive back in Federal spending. As for my colleague from New Jersey, his State on a per capita basis has it even worse. This alone is responsible for the fiscal stress in both of our States.

This is an enormous and unjustifiable redistribution of wealth between the States. This amendment takes a first small step to begin rolling back these taker State preferences by eliminating one of the many--but one of the most unjustifiable of them--the EPSCoR program.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chair, I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chair, first off, I would like to emphasize that this does not take away funding from the Office of Science. It eliminates a very poorly designed set-aside that is based on spending that is completely unrelated to the actual Office of Science.

If the goal of this program were to equalize the funding in the Office of Science, then it should be based on the actual expenditures of the Office of Science so that States that are underrepresented there would, presumably, be able to qualify for these. It does not do that. If it were designed to equalize the spending between States that receive a lot more Federal funding than those that don't, then you would see a very different set of States in this.

Particularly the fact that it is not based on a per capita basis is the fundamental flaw in this thing. If you look at those States, the single distinguishing characteristic is not that they are poor or rural or anything else; it is that they have small populations, which means that they are overrepresented in the Senate.

One of the main mechanisms for transferring wealth out of large States like New Jersey, like Illinois, like California, and a large number of other States into smaller States are spending formulas that have, frankly, been cooked up in the Senate, where small States are overrepresented and the formulas steer large amounts of money into them.

If this were based on a per capita basis, it would, at least, be rational. If the Office of Science's funding were based on actual expenditures, at least in the Department of Energy, it would be rational. What we see are States receiving EPSCoR funds that get far more than their share both in Federal funding and in Department of Energy funding overall. A rational program would, first off, collect all research funding in all areas and base the set-asides on that. Secondly, it would do it on a per capita basis.

These are fundamental flaws, and at this point it is preferable to just eliminate the entire program and start over if people think it is a useful thing.

I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source