[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 160 (Thursday, November 13, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12644-S12645]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          REGARDING: FEDERAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT

 Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, as a Senator, I am afforded a unique 
opportunity to see a broad cross section of our Nation. From that 
perspective, I have had a chance to reflect upon why our country 
continues to be the envy of the world. Some might say that we are 
blessed with abundant natural resources. That is true enough, but in 
the final analysis, it is the American people that have made, and will 
continue to make, this country great.
  We are a nation drawn from diverse backgrounds and ideas. Still, 
there is a thread that unites us. Our forefathers, who came to this 
land to build a new life, created in turn a nation of builders. We 
build homes, we build businesses and factories, but most of all we 
build futures; we build hope. And, as a people, we rise to meet a 
challenge. At no time was that more apparent than during World War II. 
That crisis forced our Nation to make drastic sacrifices in order to 
survive. The legacy of those choices has driven our economy and our 
policies ever since. It is one of those legacies, the Federal 
investment in science and technology, that concerns me today.
  Science and technology have shaped our world. It is very easy to see 
the big things: putting a man on the moon, breakthroughs in genetic 
research, and the burgeoning world of the Internet. In today's world 
technology surrounds us: the computer that makes our cars run, lets us 
talk on the telephone, runs the stoplights, runs the grocery store 
checkout, and controls the microwave. Our world runs on technology and 
the American Federal investment in research and development has played 
a significant part in creating it. Much of our economy runs on 
technology as well. One-third to one-half of all U.S. economic growth 
is the result of technical progress. Technology contributes to the 
creation of new goods and services, new jobs and new capital. It is the 
principal driving force behind the long-term economic growth and 
increased standards of living of most of the world's modern industrial 
societies.
  The history of the last five decades has shown us that there is a 
Federal role in the creation and nurturing of science and technology. 
But the last three decades have shown us something else: fiscal 
reality. The simple truth is that we just don't have enough money to do 
everything we'd like. It took some time for us to realize that and by 
the time we did, we found ourselves in a fiscal situation that is only 
now being addressed. As a result, discretionary spending is under 
immense fiscal pressure.
  One only has to look back over the last 30 years to illustrate this 
trend. In 1965, mandatory spending--entitlements and interest on the 
debt--accounted for 30 percent of our budget, while 70 percent was 
discretionary. That meant that 70 percent of the budget could be used 
for roads, education, medical research, parks, and national defense. 
Today, just 30 years later, the ratio of discretionary to mandatory 
spending has reversed. Sixty-seven percent of our budget is spent on 
mandatory programs, leaving 33 percent of our budget for discretionary 
spending. Current estimates paint an even grimmer future. By 2012, 
mandatory spending, the combination of interest and entitlement 
programs, will consume all taxpayer revenues, leaving nothing for 
parks, education, roads, or the Federal investment in science and 
technology. Clearly we as a nation, cannot afford to let this happen.
  We have both a long-term problem--addressing the ever increasing 
level of mandatory spending--and a near-term challenge--apportioning a 
dwindling amount of discretionary funding. This confluence of increased 
dependency on technology and decreased fiscal flexibility has created a 
problem of national significance. Not all deserving programs can be 
funded. Not all authorized programs can be fully implemented. The 
luxury of fully funding programs across the board has passed. We must 
set priorities. By using a set of first or guiding principles, we can 
consistently ask the right questions about each competing technology 
program. The answers will help us focus on a particular program's 
effectiveness and appropriateness for Federal research and development 
funding. This is the information needed to make the hard choices about 
which programs deserve support and which do not. Through the 
application of these First Principles, we can ensure that the limited 
resources the Federal Government has for science and technology are 
invested wisely.

[[Page S12645]]

  There are four First Principles:
  First, good science. Our Federal research and development programs 
must be focused, peer and merit reviewed, and not duplicative; the 
program must solve the right problem, in the right way.
  Second, fiscal accountability. We must exercise oversight to ensure 
that programs funded with scarce Federal dollars are managed well. We 
cannot tolerate the waste of money by inefficient management 
techniques, by government agencies, by contractors, or by Congress 
itself. A move to multi-year budgeting is a step in the right 
direction. It will work to provide more stable funding levels and give 
Congress the opportunity to exercise its much needed oversight 
responsibility.
  Third, measurable results. We need to make sure that Government 
programs achieve their goals. We need to make sure that as we craft 
legislation that affects science and technology, it includes a process 
which allows us to gauge the program's effectiveness. As we undertake 
this, we must be careful to select the correct criteria. We cannot get 
caught up in the trap of measuring the effectiveness of a research and 
development program by passing judgment on individual research 
projects.
  Fourth, the Government should be viewed as the funder of last resort. 
Government programs should not displace private investment, whether 
from corporations or venture capitalists. It is not the Federal 
Government's role to invest in technology that has matured enough to 
make it to the marketplace. When the Government provides funding for 
any technology investment program, it must take reasonable steps to 
ensure that the potential benefits derived from the program will accrue 
broadly and not, for instance, to a single company.
  Accompanying the four First Principles, are four corollaries:
  First, flow of technology. This year's Science, Technology and Space 
Subcommittee hearing have provided ample proof that the process of 
creating technology involves many steps. The present Federal research 
and development structure reinforces the increasingly artificial 
distinctions across the spectrum of research and development 
activities. The result is a set of discrete programs which each support 
a narrow phase of research and development and are not coordinated with 
one another. The Government should maximize its investment by 
encouraging the progression of a technology from the earliest stages of 
research up to commercialization, through funding agencies and vehicles 
appropriate for each stage. This creates a flow of technology, subject 
to merit at each stage, so that promising technology is not lost in a 
bureaucratic maze.

  Second, excellence in the American research infrastructure. Federal 
investment in research and development programs must foster a close 
relationship between research and education. Investment in research at 
the university level creates more than simply world class research. It 
creates world class researchers as well. The Federal strategy must 
continue to reflect this commitment to a strong research 
infrastructure. We must find ways to extend the excellence of our 
university system to primary and secondary educational institutions.
  Third, commitment to a broad range of research initiatives. An 
increasingly common theme has emerged from the Science, Technology and 
Space Subcommittee hearings this year: Revolutionary innovation is 
taking place at the overlap of research disciplines. We must continue 
to encourage this by providing opportunities for interdisciplinary 
projects and fostering collaboration across fields of research.
  Fourth, partnerships among industry, universities, and Federal 
laboratories. Each has special talents and abilities that complement 
the other. Our Federal dollar is wisely spent facilitating the creation 
of partnerships, creating a whole that is greater than the sum of its 
parts.
  The principles and corollaries that I have outlined form a framework 
that can be used to guide the creation of new, federally funded 
research and development programs and to validate existing ones. An 
objective framework derived from First Principles is a powerful method 
to elevate the debate on technology initiatives. It increases our 
ability to focus on the important issues, and decreases the likelihood 
that we will get sidetracked on politically charged technicalities. It 
also serves as a mechanism to ensure that Federal research and 
development programs are consistent and effective.
  The four principles and four corollaries serve different purposes: 
The First Principles help us evaluate an implementation of a research 
and development program.
  First, good science.
  Second, fiscal accountability.
  Third, measurable results.
  Fourth, Government as funder of last resort.
  The corollaries help us establish a consistent set of national 
goals--the vision of an overall research and development program.
  First, creation of a flow of technology.
  Second, excellence in the American research infrastructure.
  Third, commitment to a broad range of research initiatives.
  Fourth, partnerships among industry, university, and federal 
laboratories.
  Mr. President, Congress continues to face a monumental budgetary 
challenge. Despite our accomplishment this year of passing the first 
balanced budget since 1969, we have yet to face the most daunting 
challenge: bringing entitlements under control at a time of huge 
demographic shifts toward increasing numbers of recipients. Even as we 
work toward this difficult goal, we cannot lose sight of the near-term 
management challenge in making the most of our limited discretionary 
funds. The Federal investment in research and development has paid 
handsome dividends in raising our standard of living. It is an 
investment we cannot afford to pass up.

                          ____________________