Kevin Cramer on Technology

Opposed stimulus investment, except infrastructure

Kevin Cramer (R): No. Opposed stimulus investment. Some support for infrastructure.

Heidi Heitkamp (D): Yes. Supports strong infrastructure spending for areas like roads. But also concerns about the deficit, feels both parties have ducked the issue.

End Net Neutrality; don't require equal access to all users

Kevin Cramer (R): Praised FCC ruling ending Obama Net Neutrality rules. Said other ways to protect the internet.

Heidi Heitkamp (D): Yes. Strong supporter. Voted to reverse FCC repeal of net neutrality.

Sponsored sustained human presence on Moon, instead of Asteroids.

Congressional Summary: Reasserting American Leadership in Space Act (REAL Space Act): Congress finds the following:

• NASA`s top priority in human space flight is to develop a sustained human presence on the Moon, as a stepping stone for the future exploration of Mars and other destinations.
• A sustained human presence on the Moon will allow astronauts and researchers the opportunity to leverage new technologies in addressing the challenges of sustaining life on another celestial body.
• Space is the world`s ultimate high ground, returning to the Moon and reinvigorating our human space flight program is a matter of national security.
• China and Russia have declared their intentions of colonizing the Moon.
• NASA shall plan to return to the Moon by 2022 and develop a sustained human presence on the Moon.

Sponsor`s argument for bill: Rep. John Culberson: It is critical for NASA to have a bold vision for space exploration, one that the President has failed to provide. Johnson Space Center would flourish with a declared mission to return to the Moon by 2022.

Opponent`s argument against bill: Space.com: While NASA`s proposed budget for 2014 unveiled this week reaffirms t

Award research grants based on national interest.

Congressional Summary: Scientific Research in the National Interest Act: This bill directs the National Science Foundation (NSF) to award federal funding for basic research and education in the sciences only if the grant promotes the progress of science in the United States, is worthy of federal funding, and is in the national interest.

Support on GovTrack.us: Lead sponsor Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX-21)--chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee--noted the millions of dollars the NSF has doled out for purposes he considers less than worthwhile. In particular, he cited a few examples he considered particularly egregious, including:

• $700,000 to support a climate change-themed musical
• $487,000 to study the Icelandic textile industry during the Viking era
• $516,000 to help amateurs create a video game to `Relive Prom Night`

Opposition on GovTrack.us: The Science Committee`s ranking member, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX-30) called the bill anti-science. She wrote, `Most Members of Congress lack the relevant expertise to fairly evaluate the merits of any particular grant. If we do not trust the Nation`s scientific experts to make that judgement, then who are we to trust?` Johnson also noted that the NSF already has a rigorous review process, only funding about 1/5 of grant proposals.

White House Opposition: Contrary to its stated purpose, [HR.3293] would add nothing to accountability in Federal funding for scientific research, while needlessly adding to bureaucratic burdens and overhead at the NSF. It would replace the clarity of the [current rules implemented in] 1950, with confusing language that could cast a shadow over the value of basic research.

Legislative outcome: Passed House 236-178-26 (roll call 70, CR H684) on 2/11/16; bill died in Senate committee. The White House had threatened to veto the bill if it passed the Senate.