[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 11 (Friday, January 22, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S897-S899]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Domenici, Mr. 
        Lieberman, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Burns, Mr. Breaux, Mrs. 
        Hutchison, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Kerry, Mr. DeWine, 
        Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Allard, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. 
        Roberts, and Mr. Robb):
  S. 296. A bill to provide for continuation of the Federal research 
investment in a fiscally sustainable way, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


                federal research investment act of 1999

 Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce 
legislation that would elevate Congress' commitment to technological 
innovation and long-term economic growth. The Federal Research 
Investment Act specifically targets federally-funded, civilian research 
and development (R&D), while establishing greater accountability 
mechanisms for both Congress and the White House. The bill would 
bolster the aggregate amount of federal funding for R&D over an 11-year 
period. Although this legislation passed the Senate by unanimous 
consent last year, the rush to finish the 1999 federal budget kept it 
from reaching the floor of the House of Representatives and the 
President's desk.
  Senator Rockefeller, my partner in this endeavor, and I are not 
discouraged. We believe that we laid a solid foundation to build on by 
getting this legislation through the Senate last year. Now, we intend 
to persistently advocate for increased funding levels for basic R&D 
until they are realized. This legislation is the product of numerous 
hearings, caucus events, forums, and meetings with scientists and 
scholars from across the country. We have been working closely together 
on this legislation and feel that now, more than ever, Congress must 
advocate for greater R&D funding to preserve the future economic 
prosperity of our nation.
  Innovation is a key element of economic growth in the United States. 
Economists widely agree that more than 50 percent of our economic 
growth is directly linked to technological innovation. It is the 
principle driving force behind our long-term growth and our rising 
standard of living. Technology contributes to economic growth through 
the creation of new jobs, new goods and services, new capital and even 
new industries.
  The Federal Government plays a critical role in driving the 
innovation process in the United States. The majority of the Federal 
Government's basic R&D is directed toward critical missions to serve 
the public interest in areas including health, environmental pollution 
control, space exploration,

[[Page S898]]

and national defense. Federal funds support nearly 60 percent of the 
nation's basic research, with a similar share performed in colleges and 
universities. Congressional support reflects a consensus that although 
basic research is the foundation for many innovations, the rate of 
return to society generated by investments in R&D is significantly 
larger than the benefits that can be captured by the performing 
institution.
  The National Institutes of Health (NIH) received the largest dollar 
increase in history in the fiscal year (FY) 1999 federal budget. The 
agency received a record 14.1 percent increase in its R&D budget, 
nearly $2 billion. Due to steady increases every year, the NIH R&D 
budget is now 28 percent larger in inflationary-adjusted terms than it 
was in FY 1994.
  NIH's overwhelming support by Congress reflects a growing popular 
movement both in the Senate and House to double funding for NIH over 
the next five years. Many of my colleagues, eager to fund the 
biotechnology that enables our citizens to live longer, more healthy 
lives, are embracing this crusade. I believe, however, many of them are 
missing the critical link that exists between the breakthrough advances 
we are experiencing today and what has enabled them to occur. The 
funding surge of R&D in the sciences in the 1960's created a wealth of 
research opportunities for scientists throughout the nation. Since that 
time though, funding has declined steadily with no hint of a reversal 
of that downward trend. If we are to dedicate ourselves to advancement 
of biotechnology and all the benefits that it will afford, we must 
support it with solid funding for the basic sciences. One truly depends 
upon the other. And that critical link, I believe, has been lost in the 
revolution of health care policy.
  Fiscal constraints due to recent efforts to balance the federal 
budget threaten the U.S. R&D infrastructure. This is due to both a 
long-term problem of the ever-increasing level of mandatory spending of 
discretionary funding that must be allocated across an increasing range 
of programs. Now, for the first time in nearly three decades, the 
Federal Government has attained a budget surplus of $70 billion in 
1998. Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office estimates a budget 
surplus of approximately $1.5 trillion over the next ten years. As 
Congress debates how to allocate surplus funds, serious consideration 
must be given to federal research and development investment.
  As a result of the current monetary environment in Congress and the 
desire to utilize the surplus prudently, I am confident that investing 
in basic R&D, and in turn the technological innovation of the future, 
is a proper use of the federal taxpayers dollars. Furthermore, the 
increased funding called for in this legislation is coupled with a 
judicious strategy for federal investment and strong accountability 
mechanisms to help guide the Administration and Congress. Nothing less 
is acceptable.
  Mr. President, despite its modest share of total U.S. R&D funding, 
the Federal Government continues to play a vital role in the nation's 
R&D enterprise. With dramatic decreases in U.S. defense R&D spending in 
the post Cold-War era, devoting attention to civilian basic research is 
more critical now than ever before. This pivotal need for a resurgence 
in basic R&D investments is evident when we further consider our 
nation's increased dependency on technology and the global competition 
that threatens our sustained leadership position. R&D drives the 
innovation process, which in turn drives the U.S. economy. Now is not 
the time to turn our backs on the nation's future prosperity.
 Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I would like to join Senator 
Frist and other distinguished colleagues in introducing the Federal 
Research Investment Act. This legislation will set a long-term vision 
for federal funding of research and development programs so that the 
United States can continue to be the world leader in high-tech 
industries.
  One only needs to look as far as the front page of the newspaper to 
see the effect of high-technology on our country. New drugs are 
becoming available for fighting cancer; new communication hardware is 
allowing more people to connect to the internet; and advances in fuel-
cell technology are leading to low-emission, high-efficiency 
alternative fuel vehicles. In fact, seventy percent of all patent 
applications cite non-profit or federally-funded research as a core 
component to the innovation being patented. People are living longer, 
with a higher quality of life, in a better economy due to processes, 
procedures, and equipment which are based on federally-funded research.
  What I am afraid of is that many people are not aware that these 
products do not simply appear out of nowhere. They are the result of a 
basis of knowledge which has been built up by researchers supported by 
federal funding. American companies pull from this knowledge base in 
order to develop the latest high-tech products which you and I read 
about in the paper and see on our store shelves every day.
  I view this knowledge base as a bank. The U.S. government puts in 
modest amounts of funding in the form of support for scientific 
research. The payback comes from the economic growth which is produced 
as this knowledge is turned into actual products by American companies.
  In fact, a large part of the current rosy economic situation is due 
to our dominant high-tech industries. High-tech companies are currently 
responsible for one-third of our economic output and half of our 
economic growth. However, if we are to continue at this pace, we need 
to support the fundamental, pre-competitive research critical to these 
industries, at the necessary levels, and in a stable manner from year 
to year, and we need to do so now.
  In the last session of the 105th Congress Senators Frist, Bingaman, 
Domenici, Gramm, Breaux, Burns, and I introduced S. 2217, the Federal 
Research Investment Act, and previous to that Senators Domenici and 
Bingaman, introduced S. 1305, the National Research Investment Act. 
Both S. 1305 and S. 2217 have been extremely successful in galvanizing 
members of the scientific and engineering community to pull together 
and work constructively towards a common ideal. In addition, it has 
brought together the co-sponsors of these bills and moved them forward 
as a group with their original idea. S. 2217 passed without dissent in 
the Senate at the end of last session, and gained 36 co-sponsors--18 
Democrats and 18 Republicans. Our aim, in re-introducing the Federal 
Research Investment Act, is to now take the next step in this process, 
bringing to fruition the goals of our bill.
  The Federal Research Investment Act is a long-term vision for federal 
R&D funding. It creates legislative language which stresses the 
importance of R&D funding to the strength of our nation's innovation 
infrastructure. It also sets out guidelines for Congress to use in 
prioritizing funding decisions.
  Just three years ago, federal science funding was in a serious 
decline and fewer than half a dozen members of Congress gave it any 
attention, but now as a significant consequence of both S. 1305 and S. 
2217 the trend, at least in the last two years, seems to have reversed 
and a universal spirit of cooperation for strong R&D funding is 
developing on all fronts. In the last two years the science budget has 
increased above inflation. In particular, for Fiscal Year 1999, an 
unprecedented 10% increase in civilian R&D funding was appropriated. 
Yet, we appear to be in a crisis situation once again due to unexpected 
budgetary constraints resulting from last year's appropriations. Thus, 
we need to continue our fight to implement the R&D budgetary guidelines 
in our bill. This uncertainty in the level of R&D funding from year to 
year can be as detrimental to the health of the scientific enterprise 
as a lack of adequate funding levels. It will be a sad day for our 
nation, and its future economic prosperity, if we manage to lose what 
progress we have made to date.
  Based on a careful review and analysis of our past history, our bill 
authorizes an annual funding increase of 5.5%, starting in the year 
2000 and going through 2010, for federally-funded, civilian, R&D 
programs. This would increase federal R&D spending to 2.6% of total, 
overall budget by 2010, a near doubling in R&D funding from 1998 
levels. In order to make sure that these increases are fully 
incorporated into budgetary process we request that the President 
include these increases in his annual budget request to Congress.
  We are currently in an economic upturn. This continues to be a 
perfect

[[Page S899]]

time to increase funding for R&D so that we can continue this growth. I 
have faith that, as long as the economic situation allows it, my 
thoughtful and wise colleagues will support increasing R&D funding to 
the levels that we have laid out in this bill. However, I am also a 
realist. I realize that the economy may not always remain as strong as 
it is right now. That is why we have introduced a funding firewall. 
Without this firewall I am seriously concerned that history will repeat 
itself. In the past, R&D funding is one of the first things that has 
been cut during times of crisis. This is the wrong approach. I believe 
that cutting R&D funding levels below a bare minimum level causes 
serious, long-term harm to the R&D infrastructure in the United States. 
Our firewall would not allow this to happen. It is not meant as a goal, 
it is meant as a bare minimum which should only be implemented in the 
leanest of years.
  Many, if not most, recent `quantum leaps' in knowledge have occurred 
at the interface between traditional disciplines of research. 
Therefore, we legislatively mandate that this funding increase must be 
macroscopically balanced, so that there is not preferential growth of 
one agency, program or field of study at the expense of other, equally 
qualified and deserving agencies. One of the original reasons that I 
started to get involved with technology issues such as EPSCoR and 
EPSCoT, was because I believe that technology should be shared by 
everyone, not just those in Silicon Valley or the Route 128 corridor in 
Boston. Therefore, this bill should not be seen as a means of promoting 
elitist science but as a mechanism for allowing for diversity in our 
national innovation infrastructure.
  Finally, so that we are able to assure other Members of Congress and 
the general public that this money authorized by this Act would be well 
spent, we have included accountability measures which will assure that 
there is no waste of federal money on out-dated, or ill-conceived 
projects. This bill puts into place a system of accountability for each 
affected agency. Our bill institutes a study by the National Academy of 
Sciences to determine how to effectively measure the progress of R&D 
based agencies and then have them institute performance measures based 
on these metrics. This will allow increases in funding without concerns 
over wasteful spending being generated.
  In conclusion, with the help of Senators Gramm, Lieberman, Domenici, 
and Bingaman, Senator Frist and I have put together a long-term vision 
for federal R&D funding which we hope will instigate real increases in 
federal funding for research and development. Federally-funded research 
has been, and will continue to be, a driving power behind our economic 
success. If we are to maintain and enhance our current economic 
prosperity we must make sure that research programs are funded at 
adequate levels in a consistent long-term manner. I urge my colleagues 
to support this bill.
 Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I'm pleased to see the Federal 
Research Investment Act introduced in the 106th Congress. This bill is 
one that I've supported throughout its history, because it addresses 
the health of our nation's science and technology base.
  Our science and technology base is vital to the nation's future. Any 
number of studies have confirmed its importance. As one excellent 
example, the National Innovation Summit, organized by MIT last March 
with the Council on Competitiveness, confirmed that the integrity of 
that base is one of the cornerstones to our future economic prosperity. 
At that Summit, many of the nation's top CEOs emphasized that the 
nation's climate for innovation is a major determinant of our ability 
to maintain and advance our high standard of living and strong economy.
  Advanced technologies are responsible for driving half of our 
economic growth since World War II, and that growth has developed our 
economy into the envy of the world. We need to continually refresh our 
stock of new products and processes that enable good jobs for our 
citizens in the face of increasing global challenges to all our 
principal industries.
  This bill emphasizes a broad range of research targets, from 
fundamental and frontier exploration, through pre-competitive 
engineering research. This emphasis on a spectrum of research maturity 
is absolutely critical. The nation is not well served by a focus on so-
called ``basic'' research that can open new fields, but then leave 
those fields without resources to develop new ideas to a pre-
competitive stage applicable to future commercial products and 
processes.
  The new bill addresses a spectrum of research fields with its 
emphasis on expanding S&T funding in many agencies. We need technical 
advances in many fields simultaneously. In more and more cases, the 
best new ideas are not flowing from explorations in a single narrow 
field, but instead are coming from inter-disciplinary studies that 
bring experts from diverse fields together for fruitful collaboration. 
This is especially evident in medical and health fields, where 
combinations of medical science with many other specialities are 
critical to the latest health care advances.
  This new bill has additional features that were critical components 
of last year's S. 2217. It proposes to utilize the National Academy of 
Science in developing approaches to evaluation of program and project 
performance. This should lead to better understanding of how Government 
Performance Results Act goals and scientific programs can be best 
coordinated. The new role for the National Academy can help define 
criteria to guide decisions on continued and future funding. The bill 
also sets up procedures to use these evaluations to terminate federal 
programs that are not performing at acceptable levels.
  The new bill incorporates a set of well-developed principles for 
federal funding of science and technology. These principles were 
developed by our Senate Science and Technology Caucus. Those 
principles, when carefully applied, can lead to better choices among 
the many opportunities for federal S&T funding. The new bill also 
incorporates recommendations for independent merit-based review of 
federal S&T programs, which should further strengthen them.
  Many aspects of the Federal Research Investment Act support and 
compliment key points in the study released by Representative Vern 
Ehlers last year. His study, ``Unlocking our Future,'' will serve as an 
important focal point for continuing discussions on the critical goal 
of strengthening our nation's science and technology base.
  This Federal Research Investment Act continues the goals expressed in 
S. 1305 last year. That was followed by S. 2217 that proposed a more 
realistic time scale for achieving this expanded support, added GPRA 
performance goals, and included language that recognized the importance 
of the budgets caps. This new bill is very similar to S. 2217.
  The new Federal Research Investment Act builds and improves on the 
goals of the previous bills. With this act, we will build stronger 
federal Science and Technology programs that will underpin our nation's 
ability to compete effectively in the global marketplace of the 21st 
century.
                                 ______