mr. chairman , i rise in support of the scientific peer review process at the national institutes of health and in opposition to the neugebauer amendment . 
for the third year in a row , the house is considering an attempt to score cheap political points at the expense of nih research . 
this year 's targets are two grants from the national institutes of mental health . 
both of these grants passed nih 's rigorous peer review process . 
this process involves two stages of review . 
in the first , scientists from leading institutions around the country make independent evaluations of each proposal . 
in the second stage , advisory councils with broad representation set priorities and approve the studies . 
our system of peer review is the envy of the world , and for good reason : it is based on science , and it is immune from political interference . 
congress should be proud of the nih and what it has accomplished . 
instead , this amendment strikes at the heart of scientific integrity at the agency . 
supporters will say that the amendment is just about two grants . 
in their view , apparently , nih should not be funding research in animal models that can expand our understanding of brain disorders ... .. 
or research on psychological distress and marriage that can reduce domestic violence . 
just looking at the two grants , i am far from persuaded . 
marriage is a key institution in our society , and we should use science to understand how it can be strengthened . 
research in animal models has provided important insights into brain disorders . 
i fail to see any justification in eliminating the funding these grants . 
more fundamentally , it is inappropriate for us to be debating the merit of these grants in the u.s. house of representatives . 
this is not a grant review panel . 
we are not scientific experts . 
our country has succeeded by leaving scientific judgments to scientists , and we should continue to do so . 
our nation 's research community is watching this house today . 
universities and researchers want to know if they can do their jobs without wondering whether congress will step in at the last moment to slander their research and sabotage their careers . 
the administration is also opposed to this amendment . 
the director of the national institutes of health dr . 
elias zerhouni stated yesterday : defunding meritorious grants on the floor of congress is unjustified scientific censorship . 
it undermines the historical strength of american science , which is based on our world renowned , apolitical , and transparent peer review process . 
i hope these words give this house pause . 
let us not vote for scientific censorship . 
let us not undermine the historical strength of american science . 
to paraphrase the editors of the new england journal of medicine , let us not rub the gem of worldwide biomedical research in political dirt . 
i urge you to join me in rejecting this ill-advised amendment . 
