FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR
For the Record: John Campbell on his own Amendment
Here is the amendment that Tom Campbell asked John Campbell to withdraw, an amendment that would have withdrawn funding for a number of NSF grants.
These aren’t earmarks, but is this wise spending?
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. *Campbell* of California: At the end of section 3, insert the following new subsection: (h) *Limitation*.--None of the funds authorized under this section may be used for research related to-- (1) archives of Andean Knotted-String Records; (2) the accuracy in the cross-cultural understanding of others' emotions; (3) bison hunting on the late prehistoric Great Plains; (4) team versus individual play; (5) sexual politics of waste in Dakar, Senegal; (6) social relationships and reproductive strategies of Phayre's Leaf Monkeys; and (7) cognitive model of superstitious belief. Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, we have a budget problem here in Washington, the Federal Government. The budget that was recently passed off of this floor has a deficit in it, continues that deficit for the next 4 years. It has a tax increase in it, the largest tax increase in American history, going forward. And it also continues to raid the Social Security funds, take the Social Security surplus that we have and spend it on things that are unrelated to Social Security. So we have a budget crisis going on. What this amendment does is it says that there are certain things upon which we should not be spending money through this bill during this time of budget deficits, stealing Social Security funds, and increasing taxes. What this amendment does, it says there's just a couple of things that we should not be increasing the deficit by spending money on, and I quote, ``The Archives of Andean Knotted-String Records,'' or to study ``The Accuracy in Cross-Cultural Understanding of Others' Emotions.'' This amendment also says that we don't want to increase spending and, therefore, increase taxes in order to pay for a study of ``Bison Hunting on the Late Prehistoric Great Plains'' or ``Team Versus Individual Play'' or ``The Sexual Politics of Waste in Dakar.'' And it also says that we don't want to increase spending and spend any of this money in this authorization and, thereby, be continuing to raid the Social Security Trust Funds in order to study ``The Social Relationships and Reproductive Strategies of Phayre's Leaf Monkeys'' or ``The Cognitive Model of Superstitious Belief.'' Now, Mr. Chairman, I understand that there is a process of peer review from which these studies come in the National Science Foundation, and that's all well and good. But our job here is we are the elected representatives and stewards of the taxpayers' money, not the academics in the National Science Foundation, and it is our decision whether or not we wish to spend taxpayers' funds on studies of the social relationships and reproductive strategies of Phayre's leaf monkeys or on bison hunting on the late prehistoric Great Plains. I think we should not do that. I am sure that some believe that these are very fine academic studies. That's excellent. Within the realms of academic halls, they may think a number of things are fine academic studies. That's not the question. The question before us is, do these things rise to the standard of requiring expenditures of taxpayer funds in a time of deficits, proposed tax increases and raiding Social Security funds? I think the answer is a resounding no. I think the answer should be a resounding no, which means that I would hope that the vote on this amendment would be an equally resounding yes.