[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 143 (Wednesday, October 22, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10952-S10954]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. GRAMM (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. 
        Domenici):
  S. 1305. A bill to invest in the future of the United States by 
doubling the amount authorized for basic scientific, medical, and 
precompetitive engineering research; to the Committee on Labor and 
Human Resources.


              THE NATIONAL RESEARCH INVESTMENT ACT OF 1998

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, President Clinton has talked a lot about 
building a bridge to the 21st century and, our philosophical 
differences aside, I want to help him build that bridge--with Bucky 
Balls.

  ``Bucky Ball'' is the nickname for Buckminsterfullerene, a molecular 
form of carbon that was discovered by Prof's. Robert F. Curl and 
Richard E. Smalley of Rice University in Houston. They won the 1996 
Nobel Prize in chemistry for this discovery.
  Bucky Balls were named after R. Buckminster Fuller, the architect 
famous for his geodesic domes, because this new molecule closely 
resembles his designs. The silly nickname notwithstanding, their 
discovery was a breakthrough that will have scientific and practical 
applications across a wide variety of fields, from electrical 
conduction to the delivery of medicine into the human body.
  Bucky Balls are impervious to radiation and chemical destruction, and 
can be joined to form tubes 10,000 times smaller than a human hair, yet 
100 times stronger than steel. Use of the molecules is expected to 
establish a whole new class of materials for the construction of many 
products, from airplane wings and automobile bodies to clothing and 
packaging material.
  This may be more than you want to know about molecular physics, but 
think about it this way: Because we encourage the kind of thinking that 
leads to discoveries like Bucky Balls, the United States stands as the 
economic, military, and intellectual leader of the world. We achieved 
this not by accident, but by a common, unswerving conviction that 
America's future was something to plan for, invest in, and celebrate. 
Using the products of imagination and hard work, from Winchester rifles 
and steam engines to space shuttles, Americans built a nation. We're 
still building, but for what we need in the next century, we're going 
to have to turn to people like Curl and Smalley to give us materials 
like Bucky Balls, and the Government has a role to play.
  Unfortunately, over the past 30 years, the American Government has 
set different priorities. In 1965, 5.7 percent of the Federal budget 
was spent on nondefense research and development. Thirty-two years 
later in 1997, that figure has dropped by two-thirds. We spend a lot 
more money than we did in 1965, but we spend it on social programs, not 
science. We invest in the next elections, not the next generation.
  The United States is underinvesting in basic research. That's right. 
The author of the landmark deficit reduction legislation known today as 
Gramm-Rudman supports the idea of the Government spending more money on 
something.
  Not only do I support the idea of spending more on science and 
technology, I am today introducing a piece

[[Page S10953]]

of legislation to achieve that goal. I am pleased to be joined by 
Senators Lieberman, Domenici, and Bingaman as I introduce S. 1305, the 
National Research Investment Act of 1998. This bill, an update of my 
earlier bill, S. 124, would double the amount spent by the Federal 
Government on basic scientific, medical, and precompetitive engineering 
research over 10 years from $34 billion in 1999 to $68 billion in 2008.
  If we, as a country, do no restore the high priority once afforded 
science and technology in the Federal budget and increase Federal 
investment in research, it will be impossible to maintain the U.S. 
position as the technological leader of the world. Since 1970, Japan 
and Germany have spent a larger share of their national income on 
research and development than we have. We can no longer afford to fall 
behind. Expanding the Nation's commitment to research in basic science 
and medicine is a critically important investment in the future of our 
Nation. It means saying no to many programs with strong political 
support, but by expanding research we are saying yes to jobs and 
prosperity in the future.
  I believe that if we want the 21st century to be a place worth 
building a bridge to, and if we want to maintain the U.S. position as 
the leader of the free world, then we need to restore the prominence 
that research and technology once had in the Federal budget. Our 
parent's generation fought two World Wars, overcame some of the worst 
economic conditions in the history of our Nation, and yet still managed 
to invest in America's future. We have an obligation to do at least an 
equal amount for our children and grandchildren.
  Over the past 30 years, we have not lived up to this obligation, but 
it isn't too late to change our minds. The discovery of Bucky Balls is 
a testament to the resilience of the American scientific community. I 
believe that if we once again give scientists and researchers the 
support that they deserve, if we make the same commitment to our 
children's future that our parents made to ours, then the 21st century 
promises to be one of unlimited potential.
  America is a great and powerful country for two reasons. First, we 
have had more freedom and opportunity than any other people who have 
ever lived and with that freedom and opportunity people like us have 
been able to achieve extraordinary things. Second, we have invested 
more in science than any people in history. Science has given us the 
tools and freedom has allowed us to put them to work. If we preserve 
freedom and invest in science, there is no limit on the future of the 
American people. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important 
legislation.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, the National Research Investment Act of 
1998, which Senator Gramm and I introduced this morning, is important 
legislation designed to reverse a downward trend in the Federal 
Government's allocation to science and engineering research. Although 
America currently enjoys a vibrant economy, with robust growth of over 
4 percent and record low unemployment, we should pause for a moment to 
examine reasons which underlie our current prosperity.
  In one of the few models agreed upon by a vast majority of 
economists, Dr. Robert Solow won the Nobel Prize for demonstrating that 
at least half of the total growth in the U.S. economy since the end of 
World War II is attributable to scientific and technological 
innovation. In other words, money spent to increase scientific and 
engineering knowledge represents an investment which pays rich 
dividends for America's future.
  Dr. Solow's economic theory is the story of our Nation's innovation 
system--a system that has transformed scientific and technological 
innovation into a potent engine of economic growth for America. In 
broad terms, our innovation system consists of industrial, academic, 
and governmental institutions working together to generate new 
knowledge, new technologies, and people with the skills to move them 
effectively into the marketplace. Publicly funded science has shown to 
be surprisingly important to the innovation system. A new study 
prepared for the National Science Foundation found that 73 percent of 
the main science papers cited by American industrial patents in two 
recent years were based on domestic and foreign research financed by 
governments or nonprofit agencies.
  Patents are the most visible expression of industrial creativity and 
the major way that companies and inventors are able to reap benefits 
from a bright idea. Even though industry now spends far more than the 
Federal Government on research, the fact that most patents result from 
research performed at universities, government labs, and other public 
agencies demonstrate our dependence on these institutions for the vast 
majority of economic activity. Such publicly funded science, the study 
concluded, has turned into a fundamental pillar of industrial advance.
  Last week's awarding of the Nobel Prize to Dr. William Phillips from 
the Government's National Institute of Standards and Technology 
provides a wonderful example of how publicly funded science pays 
dividends. Dr. Phillips was honored for his work which used laser light 
to cool and trap individual atoms and molecules. I am told that the 
methods developed by Dr. Phillips and his coworkers may lead to the 
design of more precise atomic clocks for use in global navigation 
systems and atomic lasers, which may be used to manufacture very small 
electronic components for the next generation of computers. Dr. 
Phillips' achievement is the most visible recognition of the Department 
of Commerce's laboratory. Since 1901, however, the agency has quietly 
carried out research to develop accurate measurement and calibration 
techniques. The NIST laboratory, together with Commerce's technology 
programs, have greatly aided American business and earned our 
Nation billions of dollars in industries such as electrical power, 
semiconductor manufacturing, medical, agricultural, food processing, 
and building materials.

  Yet, despite the demonstrated importance of publicly funded 
scientific research, the amount spent on science and engineering by the 
Federal Government is declining. Senator Gramm has already noted that 
``in 1965, 5.7 percent of the Federal budget was spent on nondefense 
research and development. Thirty two years later, that figure has 
dropped by two-thirds to 1.9 percent.'' If you believe as I do, that 
our current prosperity, intellectual leadership in science and medicine 
and the growth of entire new industries are directly linked to 
investments made 30 years ago, then you have got to ask where will this 
country be 30 years from now?
  At the same time, it is likely that several countries, particularly 
in Asia, will exceed on a per capita basis, the U.S. expenditure in 
science. Japan is already spending more than we are in absolute dollars 
on nondefense research and development. This is an historic reversal. 
Germany, Singapore, Taiwan, China, South Korea, and India are 
aggressively promoting R&D investment. These facts led Erich Bloch, the 
former head of the National Science Foundation, to write that the 
``whole U.S. R&D system is in the midst of a crucial transition. Its 
rate of growth has leveled off and could decline. We cannot assume that 
we will stay at the forefront of science and technology as we have for 
50 years.''
  The future implications of our failure to invest can be better 
understood if we consider what our lives would be like today without 
the scientific innovations of those past 50 years. Imagine medicine 
without x rays, surgical lasers, MRI scanners, fiber-optic probes, 
synthetic materials for making medical implants, and the host of new 
drugs that combat cancer and even show promise as suppressors of the 
AIDS virus. Consider how it would be to face tough choices about how to 
protect the environment without knowledge of upper atmospheric physics, 
chemistry of the ozone layer or understanding how toxic substances 
effect human health. Imagine communication without faxes, desktop 
computers, the internet, or satellites. Less tangible but nonetheless 
disconcerting, is the prospect of a future for our country of free 
thinkers, if all new advances and innovation were to originate from 
outside of America's shores.
  Although difficult, the partisan conflicts and rifts of the past 
several years may have performed a useful service in clarifying the 
debate over when public funding on research is justified. Senator Gramm 
and I have discussed this

[[Page S10954]]

topic at some length. We believe it is a mistake to separate research 
into two warring camps, one flying the flag of basic science and the 
other applied science. Rather the research enterprise represents a 
broad spectrum of human activity with basic and applied science at 
either end but not in opposition. Every component along the spectrum 
produces returns--economic, social, and intellectual gains for the 
society as a whole. The Federal Government should patiently invest in 
science, medicine, and engineering that lies within the public domain. 
Once an industry or company begins to pursue proprietary research, then 
support for that particular venture is best left to the private sector. 
This is what we mean by the term ``precompetitive research.''
  With introduction of the National Research Investment Act of 1998, we 
begin a bipartisan effort to build a consensus that will support a 
significant increase in Federal research and development efforts. I am 
particularly appreciative of the support given today from nearly 100 
different scientific and engineering professional societies which 
collectively represent many more than 1 million members. 
Accomplishments of your members illuminate the role that science and 
engineering plays in the innovation process.
  In a Wall Street Journal survey of leading economists published in 
March, 43 percent cited investments in education and research and 
development as the Federal action that would have the most positive 
impact on our economy. No other factors, including reducing Government 
spending or lowering taxes, scored more than 10 percent. While Senator 
Gramm and I are certainly committed to fiscal responsibility and 
balancing the budget, we think that the country would be best served by 
promoting investments in education and R&D and reducing entitlement 
consumption spending. Failure to do so now may well imperil America's 
future economic vitality and our leadership in science and technology.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor 
of S. 1305, the National Research Investment Act of 1998.
  Boosting the strength of our R&D infrastructure is crucially 
important to the future health and prosperity of every inhabitant of my 
home State of New Mexico, just as it is to every American. The 
scientific, technical, and medical advances of the past 40 years have 
dramatically improved our standard of living. If we are to maintain 
these advances into the future, we cannot afford to stand still.
  Unfortunately, we are now headed in the wrong direction. Federal 
funding for research and development has declined as an overall 
percentage of the Federal budget over the last 20 years. We now spend 
less than 2 cents of each dollar of Federal spending on science and 
engineering research and development. We need to do better. It is clear 
that if we want to create the kind of high-paying, high-technology jobs 
that will ensure a decent standard of living for American workers, we 
will need a much stronger commitment to investing in research and 
development.
  Although the focus of this bill is ensuring a strong future for 
civilian R&D, it is important to recognize that the basic science and 
fundamental technology development supported by the Defense portion of 
our budget also contributes to our domestic prosperity. For our Nation 
to remain prosperous into the next century, we need both sources of 
support for basic science and fundamental technology to remain strong, 
even in a time of constrained budgets.
  There was a time when our investment in research and development 
equaled that of the rest of the world combined. But through the years, 
we have allowed our commitment to slide, and have lost much ground 
compared to our international competitors. Mr. President, this is not 
where we want to be, and I hope that the National Research Investment 
Act of 1998 will put us on the path to a better future.
                                 ______