here's one of my other favorites from williams proxmire's days. the f.a.a. was named for spending $57,000 on a study of the physical measurements of 432 airline stewardasss. this included knee to knee sitting and length of the buttocks. $57,000, your money being put to good use. fast forward and we spend about $8 billion a year with the national science foundation. is it getting any better? are they doing a better job at overseeing their money? i don't know. this bill is going to increase their funding by 68%. there's $29 billion in this bill for the national science foundation. so don't you think the american people deserve to know where their money is being spent? this was from their sister agency, the n.i.h. but we can't get started without talking about it. this is over $800,000 to study whether or not japanese quail are more sexually promiscuous on cocaine. i'm not making this up. $800,000 of taxpayer money to study whether japanese quail are more sexually promiscuous on cocaine. you think we could have just polled the audience. you think we could have

william proxmire was a conservative democrat from wisconsin back in the 1960's and 1970's. he started out a ward called the golden fleece award. one of the first awards he gave -- the presiding officer: order in the chamber, please. mr. paul: one of the first awards william proxmire gave, the golden fleece award, was an award for a study about what makes people fall in love. you'd think with the lampooning through the years, the ridiculous lizards on treadmills of pandz mainian -- pand -- panamanian grogs, instead of giving them more money, we should give them less money. so perhaps if we wanted them to reform, we would say to the national science foundation instead of increasing your budget 68%, why don't reduce our budget 10% and say behave before. why don't we reform how they pick their committees. for example, if you want to study -- the presiding officer: we need order in the chamber. mr. paul: if you want to study cocaine and study japanese quail using cocaine and you want to know if they're more sexually promiscuous, you know how you get approval for your funding? yo

william proxmire was a conservative democrat from wisconsin back in the 60s and 70s. he started an award called the golden fleece award. one of the first awards he gave. >> one of the first awards that william proxmire gave, the golden fleece award was an award or a study about what makes people fall inlove . you'd think with the lampooning through the years, the ridiculous lizards on treadmills had a median frost that after a while people would say instead of getting this agency is hopeful of waste and ridiculous studies, maybeinstead of giving them more money we should give them less money . perhaps if we wanted them to reform we would say to the national foundation instead of increasing your budget 68 percent why don't we reproduce the budget. why don't we reform how they pick their committees. for example if you want to ud study. >> we need order in the chamber. >> if you want to study cocaine and japanese quail, and you want to know if there are more promiscuous to get approval for your funding. you call up another body to study cocaine in animalsand you say i've

these are william proxmire's words from the early 1970's. he was a conservative democrat. he says i object to this study on love because no one, even the national science foundation, can argue that falling in love sf a science -- in love is a science. not only because i'm sure that even if they spend $84 million or $84 billion, they would

william proxmire was a conservative democrat from wisconsin back in the 1960's and 1970's.d out a ward called the golden fleece award. one of the first awards he gave -- the presiding officer: order in the chamber, please. mr. paul: one of the first awards william proxmire gave, the golden fleece award, was an award for a study about what makes people fall in love. you'd think with the lampooning through the years, the ridiculous lizards on treadmills of pandz mainian -- pand -- panamanian grogs, instead of giving them more money, we should give them less money. so perhaps if we wanted them to reform, we would say to the national science foundation instead of increasing your budget 68%, why don't reduce our budget 10% and say behave before. why don't we reform how they pick their committees. for example, if you want to study -- the presiding officer: we need order in the chamber. mr. paul: if you want to study cocaine and study japanese quail using cocaine and you want to know if they're more sexually promiscuous, you know how you get approval for your funding? you call up

here's one of my other favorites from williams proxmire's days. the f.a.a. was named for spending $57,000 on a study of the physical measurements of 432 airline stewardasss. this included knee to knee sitting and length of the buttocks. $57,000, your money being put to good use. fast forward and we spend about $8 billion a year with the national science foundation. is it getting any better? are they doing a better job at overseeing their money? i don't know. this bill is going to increase their funding by 68%. there's $29 billion in this bill for the national science foundation. so don't you think the american people deserve to know where their money is being spent? this was from their sister agency, the n.i.h. but we can't get started without talking about it. this is over $800,000 to study whether or not japanese quail are more sexually promiscuous on cocaine. i'm not making this up. $800,000 of taxpayer money to study whether japanese quail are more sexually promiscuous on cocaine. you think we could have just polled the audience. you think we could have