[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 74 (Wednesday, June 10, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6112-S6114]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     REMARKS BY SENATOR BILL FRIST TO THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN 
                              UNIVERSITIES

 Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, on Tuesday, June 2nd, I addressed 
the Association of American Universities regarding the importance of 
federal support for university-based research. I ask that my remarks be 
printed in the Record.
  The remarks follow:

Federal Support for University-Based Research Has Produced a Wealth of 
                       Benefits for All Americans

       As a medical scientist, a researcher, a former university 
     faculty member, a current university Trustee, and a life-long 
     explorer in the quest for new knowledge, I believe, as you 
     do, that America's strategy of federally-supported 
     university-based research has produced a wealth of benefits 
     for all Americans.
       It's not only expanded our scientific and academic national 
     base, but increased the economic vitality of our Nation, 
     raised the standard of living all Americans enjoy, and 
     produced a highly-educated workforce that has made us a 
     leader in today's global economy. In fact, in economic terms 
     alone, the return on our federal investment has been huge. As 
     much as one half of all U.S. growth is a result of the 
     technical progress we've achieved through research.
       According to the Office of Science and Technology Policy 
     (OSTP), technology is the single most important factor in 
     long-term economic growth. Not only is the performance of 
     U.S. businesses and their contributions to economic growth 
     directly linked to their use of technology, but as cited in a 
     study conducted by the US Department of Commerce, 
     manufacturing businesses that used eight or more advanced 
     technologies grew 14.4 percent more than plants that used 
     none--and production wages were more than 14 percent higher.
       For any of you who may encounter doubters in other 
     Congressional offices let me give you just two quick examples 
     from the President of MIT, who testified before my committee, 
     of how the federal investment in university research has 
     produced phenomenal returns.
       Over the last three decades, the Department of Defense has 
     funded $5 billion in university in information technology. 
     Those programs alone created one-third to one-half of all 
     major breakthroughs in the computer and communications 
     industries. Today, those businesses account for $500 billion 
     of GDP--a return on our investment of 3,000 percent!
       In fact, studies of just that one university along--MIT--
     found that, in Massachusetts, MIT grads and faculty founded 
     over 600 companies that produced 300,000 jobs and $40 billion 
     in sales. In Silicon Valley, MIT grads founded 225 companies 
     which produced 150,000 jobs and more than $22 billion in 
     sales.
       In one industry alone--biotechnology--government's $43 
     million annual investment has not only produced the human 
     capital of the biotech industry--scientists, engineers, 
     managers--and new knowledge that's led to an understanding of 
     the molecular basis of disease, but it's also produced new 
     companies and new wealth.
       To again use MIT as an example, in Massachusetts alone, 
     MIT-related companies have produced 10,000 new jobs, $3 
     billion in annual revenues, and 100 new biotech patents 
     licensed the U.S. companies that have induced investment of 
     $650 million. Those companies now produce nine of the 10 FDA-
     approved biotech drugs that stop heart attacks and treat 
     cancer, cystic fibrosis and diabetes--and we've only just 
     begun to tap the potential returns of this rapidly advancing 
     new field.
       And I'm sure every one of the universities you represent 
     could cite statistics that are equally impressive.
       But, as you well know, universities are not just the 
     fountainhead of innovation. They

[[Page S6113]]

     are the wellsprings that provide the intellectual 
     underpinning of future progress, because they train the 
     people who will translate tomorrow's discoveries into even 
     more exciting products and processes and industries. And when 
     you consider what today's students are already capable of, 
     the potential is truly breathtaking.
       Jennifer Mills, for example, is a physics undergraduate 
     from Portland, Oregon who wrote much of the computer code 
     responsible for the astounding images sent back to Earth by 
     the Hubble telescope.
       James McLurkin, an undergrad engineer, created a tiny robot 
     that may well revolutionize certain kinds of surgery, 
     enabling surgeons to operate inside the body without ever 
     touching the patient! Just imagine what tomorrow's students 
     to do!


      America's Investment in Science and Technology Must Continue

       Clearly, America's investment in science and technology 
     must continue. The two central questions that Congress must 
     ask and answer, however, are: (1) Will science and technology 
     continue to be as great a Congressional priority in the 
     future as it has been in the past; and (2) Will the kind of 
     financial investment necessary to sustain future progress 
     even be possible in light of our other growing financial 
     commitments?
       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, and that even in times of fiscal 
     austerity that commitment has been relatively consistent. 
     However, the last three decades have also shown us something 
     else: fiscal reality. The simple truth is there's just not 
     enough money to do everything  we'd like to do. 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. And, budget surpluses notwithstanding, 
     discretionary spending is, and will continue to be, under 
     immense fiscal pressure.
       One only has to look back over the last 30 years to confirm 
     this trend. In 1965, mandatory federal spending on 
     entitlements and interest on the debt accounted for 30 
     percent of the federal budget. Fully 70 percent went toward 
     discretionary programs--research, education, roads, bridges, 
     national parks, and national defense.
       Today, just 30 years later, that ratio has been almost 
     completely reversed: 67 percent of the budget is spent on 
     mandatory programs and interest on the debt; only 33 percent 
     is left for absolutely everything else, including research.
       In fact, total R&D spending today as a percentage of GDP is 
     just .75 percent--as compared to 2.2 percent in the mid-1960s 
     when superpower rivalry and the race to space fueled a 
     national commitment to science and technology. And as the 
     Baby Boom generation begins to retire and the discretionary 
     portion of the budget shrinks even further, this situation 
     will only grow worse.
       Thus, we have both a long-term problem: addressing the 
     ever-increasing level of mandatory spending; and a near-term 
     challenge: apportioning the ever-dwindling amount of 
     discretionary funding.
       The confluence of this increased dependency on technology 
     and decreased fiscal flexibility has created a problem too 
     obvious to ignore: not all deserving programs can be funded; 
     not all authorized programs can be fully implemented. In 
     other words, the luxury of fully funding science and 
     technology programs across the board has long since passed. 
     We must set priorities.


 vision for the future: How we ensure Federal Support for Science and 
                               Technology

       With the introduction of S. 1305, the Federal Research 
     Investment Act, * * * a debate on funding for science and 
     technology that is long overdue, and I commend them for it.
       I firmly believe that Congress must reaffirm our national 
     commitment to science and technology, and redouble its 
     efforts to ensure that funding is not only maintained but 
     increased. However, I also believe that funding levels alone 
     are not the answer.
       What we really need is a strategy for the future, a vision 
     that not only provides adequate levels of funding, but 
     ensures that that funding is both responsible and sustainable 
     over the long term.
       I believe we do that by establishing and applying a set of 
     first or guiding principles that will enable Congress to (1) 
     consistently ask the right questions about each competing 
     technology program; (2) focus on that program's effectiveness 
     and appropriateness for Federal funding, and most 
     importantly, (3) make the hard choices about which programs 
     deserve to be funded and which do not. Only then can we be 
     assured that Congress has invested wisely and well.
       What are these first principles? There are four.
       (1) Federal R&D programs must be good science. They must be 
     focused, not duplicative, and peer-reviewed. Because there is 
     strength in diversity, they must support both knowledge-
     driven science--which broadens our base of knowledge and 
     advances the frontiers of science; and mission-driven science 
     requirements--which push the state-of-the-art in specific 
     technology fields.
       (2) Program must be fiscally accountable. Especially in 
     today's fiscal environment, wasteful administrative habits 
     can't be tolerated.
       (3) They must have measurable results. Programs must 
     achieve their aims. Their effectiveness must be evaluated, 
     not on the basis of individual projects which can have 
     varying rates of success, but on basis of the entire program.
       (4) They must employ a consistent approach. Federal policy 
     must be applied consistently across the entire spectrum of 
     Federal research agencies. High quality, productive research 
     programs must be encouraged regardless of where they are 
     located.
       Accompanying the four first principles, are four 
     corollaries:
       (1) Flow of Technology.--The process of creating technology 
     involves many steps. However, the current federal structure 
     clearly reinforces increasingly artificial distinctions 
     across the spectrum of research and development activities. 
     The result is a set of a programs which each support a narrow 
     phase of research and development, but are not coordinated 
     with one another.
       Government must 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.
       (2 Excellence in the American Research Infrastructure.--We 
     must foster a close relationship between research and 
     education. Our investment at the university level creates 
     more than simply world class research. It creates would class 
     researchers as well. We must continue this strong research 
     infrastructure, and find ways to extend the excellence of our 
     university system to primary and secondary educational 
     institutions.
       (3) Commitment to a Board Range of Research Initiatives.--
     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.
       (4) Partnerships among Industry, Universities, and Federal 
     Labs.--Each of these has special talents and abilities that 
     complement the other. Our federal dollars are wisely spent by 
     facilitating the creation of partnerships, in effect creating 
     a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.
       These first principles and their four corollaries provide a 
     framework that will not only guide the creation of new, 
     federally-funded research and development programs, but 
     validate existing ones. Taken together, they create a 
     powerful method for elevating the debate by increasing 
     Congress' ability to focus on the important issues; 
     decreasing the likelihood that it will get sidetracked on 
     politically-charged technicalities; and ensuring that federal 
     R&D programs are consistent and effective. They will also 
     help us establish a both consistent set of national goals, 
     and a vision for the future.


S. 1305: A Good First Step, But a More Comprehensive Approach is Needed

       S. 1305 has put funding for science and technology at the 
     forefront of the 105th Congress. It is an important first 
     step in the creation of a long-term federal research and 
     development strategy, and I wholeheartedly support its 
     general concept and thrust. However, I believe it falls short 
     in many of the areas I have just outlined.
       In S. 1305, funding levels are dramatically increased 
     within the first five years regardless of economic 
     conditions--making funding targets unrealistic and 
     unsustainable, particularly when those funding levels 
     jeopardize discretionary programs necessary to the 
     maintenance and operation of the nation.
       The bipartisan bill I will propose with Senator Rockefeller 
     will also substantially increase funding but more gradually. 
     Rather than achieve a doubling of funds in 10 years as S. 
     1305 proposes, the First bill will achieve the same goal in 
     12 years.
       My bill also requires the President to provide, as part of 
     his annual budget, a detailed summary of the total level of 
     federal funding for all civilian research agencies, as well 
     as a focused strategy that reflects the funding projections 
     of Congress for each future fiscal year until 2010.
       S. 1305 provides Congress with no mechanism to identify or 
     target those programs that are either marginal or 
     ineffective. In keeping with the third principle that all 
     federal R&D programs must be fiscally accountable, my bill 
     will include a mechanism that requires OMB to indicate those 
     programs that fail to meet a minimally acceptable criteria as 
     defined by a National Academy of Science study.
       Finally, S. 1305 effects only civilian research and 
     development programs, and provides no support for highly 
     successful defense science and technologies efforts such as 
     those under DARPA. And, as I demonstrated in my earlier 
     example, defense-related research has produced remarkable 
     spinoffs in the private sector, the Internet being the most 
     obvious example. Thus, in a companion bill, I will propose a 
     similar strategy for increasing funding for defense-related 
     R&D.
       Even with its imperfections, S. 1305 is already a success--
     because it has commenced a debate on science and technology 
     investment that is long overdue. And it is a debate I am 
     committed to furthering.


                           Legislative Update

       Accordingly, I commenced a process, which continues daily, 
     through which I hope to examine all relevant approaches, and 
     collect and compile the input of all federal research 
     agencies, the scientific community, my distinguished 
     colleagues in Congress and government, and all other relevant 
     parties in an effort to construct a comprehensive, feasible

[[Page S6114]]

     and effective strategy for future federal funding of science 
     and technology.
       On April 28th, the Science, Technology, and Space 
     Subcommittee which I chair, held a hearing to further explore 
     the whole issue of federal funding, and three of the original 
     cosponsors of S. 1305--Senators Gramm, Lieberman, and 
     Bingaman--participated. Senator Domenici, who was unable to 
     attend, submitted testimony for the Record.
       At my direction, my personal chief of staff, and my 
     Commerce Committee staff, have met extensively with 
     professional societies, private industry, and university 
     representatives, some of whom are here today, to get a clear 
     sense of your reality, your vision of where research and 
     development ought to be headed, and your reaction to both S. 
     1305 and a First alternative.
       They've also been meeting with the senior legislative 
     staffs of other Members to develop a strategy everyone is 
     comfortable with, and that addresses everyone's primary 
     concerns. And we've been meeting with House staff and 
     coordinating our goals with those of the House Policy Study. 
     The response has been very positive.
       After comprehensive discussions my Senate colleagues have 
     agreed to support a First alternative in which funding would 
     rise from $34 billion to $68 billion. And all other parties 
     seem to like the idea of a long-term vision, a concrete 
     strategy to take us there (vs. rhetoric that is subject to 
     change), and realistic numbers that stand a good chance of 
     being achieved.
       Your input into this process has been particularly 
     important. Every time we meet, my staff and I gain a better 
     understanding of the complexity of these issues as they 
     relate to universities. And I hope you'll continue to work 
     with us in the days ahead.
       In the very near future, probably within a week or two, a 
     Frist/Rockefeller bill, officially called the Federal 
     Research Investment Act of 1998, will be dropped. It is a 
     bill that represents--not a roadblock to increased federal 
     funding for research--but a carefully-crafted compromise, 
     agreed to by all, and representing the best efforts of all.


                        challenge of the future

       Today, in every known field of exploration, man has 
     answered questions once considered unanswerable, and 
     questions impossible to even conceive just a short time ago. 
     Yet so many mysteries remain. And so we must continue to 
     seek, to define, to know.
       Yet science today is not only about the esoteric, it's 
     about the practical. It's about the simple as well as the 
     deep. It is both a luxury and a necessity. Science helps us 
     feed our families. It helps keep our loved ones healthy. By 
     continually creating new goods and services, new jobs and new 
     capital, it raises our standard of living. And it produces 
     the technologies that protect our troops and project our 
     resolve around the world. In other words, science has helped 
     keep us prosperous, and science has helped keep us free.
       Without a doubt, science is an integral part of our 
     present. But because we live in a world now dependent upon 
     science and technology excellence, a world driven by a 
     science and technology economy, science is even more 
     important to our future.
       To a large extent, universities hold the key to that future 
     because universities guide America's youth and inspire them 
     to seek out the deep truths of life, to lift the veil from 
     its fascinating secrets, to seek, to define, to know. It is 
     the University that fosters a love for the mysteries of God 
     and nature, and propels the next generation forward to 
     explore and improve our world. And that makes you a vital 
     link between the present and the future.
       We are--and we should be--justly proud of our scientific 
     accomplishments thus far. But if there is one thing science 
     has taught us, it is that man's challenges only increase with 
     every new level of knowledge we achieve. Which is why 
     continued research and development is so important.
       Expanding scientific knowledge is a responsibility that 
     extends well beyond the classrooms and universities of our 
     Nation. It is the responsibility of us all. As John F. 
     Kennedy said, ``Every educated citizen has the special 
     obligation to encourage the pursuit of learning, to promote 
     exploration of the unknown, to preserve the freedom of 
     inquiry, [and to] to support the advancement of research . . 
     .''
       I take his words seriously. I know you do as well. Working 
     together, I believe we can ensure that American commitment to 
     research and scientific inquiry continues unabated in the 
     years ahead.

                          ____________________