Geoscience Policy Monthly Review
february 2016
The Monthly Review is part of a continuing effort to improve communications about the role of geoscience in policy.
Current and archived monthly reviews are available online.Subscribe to receive the Monthly Review directly.
congress
House science committee discusses NSF management reform
February 4, 2016
The House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Subcommittee on Research and Technology, held a hearing to discuss recommendations for management reform at the National Science Foundation (NSF). The hearing comes in the wake of a 2015 report from the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA), a non-partisan organization chartered by Congress to evaluate, analyze, and make recommendations on management, governance, policy and operations at various government agencies. Congresswoman Barbara Comstock (R-VA) chaired the hearing and witnesses Cynthia Heckmann of NAPA, Richard Buckius of NSF, and Allison Lerner of NSF, provided testimony.
NSF’s Director, France Cordova, and the National Science Board (NAB) requested the NAPA report to evaluate the agency’s use of cooperative agreements (CAs) to support the development, construction, commissioning, and future operations of large-scale research facilities. Overall, the report found that CAs are appropriate to support research facility development, and provided recommendations on NSF and NSB governance issues.
Heckmann explained that the recommendations included in the NAPA report would ensure NSF program integrity by creating action options for the agency that focus on cost estimates and analysis, management policies and processes, and effective leadership and training. Buckius assured the committee that NSF is prioritizing the NAPA report and is creating committees to address their recommended target areas, which NSF has divided into two main topics: business practices and oversight accountability and stewardship. Lerner mentioned that detailed audits are needed for projects with budgets over $50 million.
Congressman Dan Lipinski (D-IL) asked how NSF will prioritize these recommendations given the associated costs without hindering NSF work. Heckmann responded by highlighting the importance of internalizing management practices for consistency. Lerner emphasized the importance of human capital investment, while Buckius pointed out that the proposed elimination of management fees will likely take the longest to implement because an alternative must be proposed.
Sources: House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, National Academy of Public Administration
Updated 3/10/2016
“Keep It in the Ground Act” introduced in the House
February 11, 2016
Congressman Jared Huffman (D-CA) introduced new legislation, along with 16 Democratic co-sponsors, that would prohibit new drilling leases in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and new coal leases on federal land. The OCS is defined as all submerged lands and seabeds that lie between the seaward extent of state jurisdiction and federal jurisdiction, typically between 3 and 200 miles offshore.
The bill, H.R. 4535, is calling for a change in the nation’s oil and gas leasing program in an effort to combat climate change. Crafted with the help of many environmental advocates, the legislation claims to help meet the goals of the Paris climate deal. Proponents of the bill praise the effort to fight climate change and support Obama’s climate agenda, while opponents claim the bill will increase costs and leave thousands without jobs.
The bill was referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources where it will need to be agreed upon before it can reach the House floor. Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and 6 other senators introduced a Senate version of the bill last year.
Sources: E&E News, Congress.gov
Updated 3/10/2016
Scientific Research in the National Interest bill
February 10, 2016
The Scientific Research in the National Interest Act (H.R. 3293) passed the House of Representatives on February 10 with a vote of 236-178. The bill, sponsored by Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX), directs the National Science Foundation (NSF) to award federal research funding only to grant proposals that promote scientific progress in the United States by increasing the economic competitiveness, advancing public health and welfare, developing STEM fields, or promoting national defense.
Proponents of the bill claim it will reduce frivolous spending on irrelevant research, and cite certain funded proposals they deem are not in the national interest. Opponents of the bill, however, believe it is an attempt to control NSF funding decisions and claim the language is redundant to current NSF approval procedures.
The bill will now move on to the Senate where it has been referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions for consideration.
Sources: E&E News, Congress.gov