[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 118 (Monday, September 13, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H8138-H8139]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN THE UNITED STATES AND THE IMPACT IT HAS ON OUR
ECONOMY
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise and
discuss the issue of scientific research in the United States and the
impact that it has on our economy.
The reason I do this is because there currently is an underfunding of
scientific research in the budget proposals we have before us and in
the appropriations bills which we have passed. I would like to review
why that is dangerous for our Nation and why we must increase our
spending on scientific research.
Let me first back up a year or two. A previous speaker, Mr. Gingrich,
had a keen interest in science and technology and asked the gentleman
from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner, chairman of the Committee on
Science, to give me the responsibility of reviewing science and
technology policy in the United States Government and make
recommendations for improvement.
After all, the previous study had been done by Vannevar Bush in 1945
and, although it was outstanding, it is clearly out of date. There has
been some excellent science policy work done recently by individuals
outside of the government, but our government had not done anything
official in that direction.
As a result of our work, after holding a considerable number of
hearings, working hand-in-glove with the Speaker and with the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), we were able to produce a new
science policy report. It has just come out in paperback, and it has
been very well received by the scientific community. It makes a number
of arguments for the importance of scientific research in our Nation
and explains what we should do in the way of Federal funding. I believe
the recommendations are well founded and should be followed.
I would also like to briefly display the number of letters I received
just in the past few weeks from leaders of scientific associations
protesting the lack of funding in this year's budget. I have a letter,
for example, from Jerry Friedman, President of the American Physical
Society; from the American Association for the Advancement of Science;
American Association of Engineering Societies; American Astronomical
Society; American Ceramic Society; American Chemical Society; American
Electronics Associations, which represents one of the bigger industries
in our Nation; American Geological Institute; American Institute of
Biological Sciences, the Chemical Engineers, the Mathematical Society,
et cetera, all expressing the great concern in the scientific world
about this particular issue.
Similarly, there was an op-ed piece in the Washington Post just a
week ago by Allan Bromley, outstanding physicist and former
presidential science advisor, who has been a leader in the scientific
community for many years. The title of his article is No Science and No
Surplus, and I would like to at this point enter that into the Record.
[From the Washington Post, August 26, 1999]
No Science, No Surplus
(By D. Allan Bromley)
America is on a roll. We're balancing the federal budget,
reforming welfare and making retirement secure. Sound like a
breakthrough in fiscal management? Not exactly. Our awesome
economic success can be traced directly to our past
investments in science. The problem is, this year's federal
budget for science is a disaster, and it compromises our
nation's economic and social progress.
Here are the latest budget numbers: NASA science is slashed
by $678 million; science at the Department of Energy is cut
by $116 million; and the National Science Foundation ends up
with $275 million less than the president requested. Clearly,
Congress has lost sight of the critical role science plays in
America.
Federal investments in science pay off--they produce
cutting-edge ideas and a highly skilled work force. The ideas
and personnel then feed into high-tech industries to drive
the U.S. economy. It's a straightforward relationship:
Industry is attentive to immediate market pressures; the
federal government makes the venturous investments in
university-based research that ensures long-term
competitiveness. So far, it's been a powerful tandem.
Thirty years ago, the laser and fiber optic cable were born
from federal investments in university research. Over time,
those two discoveries formed the backbone of a multi-billion-
dollar telecommunications industry.
The fusion of university research and industrial
development now generates about 5,000 new jobs and
contributes a quarter-billion dollars in taxes to the federal
coffer every day. It accounts for 70 percent of our economic
growth. The result is undeniable. The fusion is primarily
responsible for our booming economy and our growing federal
surplus. So the consequences of a budget cut to science are
equally undeniable: no science, no surplus.
The benefits of the science investment go deeper than just
the surplus. Three years ago this month, welfare underwent
dramatic reform. No one knew what the fallout from that would
be. But the high-tech economy eased the burden. Unemployment
was dropping to a 25-year low, and jobs were being created at
a record pace. As it turned out, half of those jobs were
generated by the high-tech sector.
The legislative challenge before us is patching up Social
Security. Again, we'll rely on the science and technology
juggernaut. Whether the solution lies in stimulating private
investment or in steady federal surpluses, the proposals all
rely on a familiar friend--the strength of our nation's
booming economy. And while Congress dithers, the public
already is taking steps of its own.
Americans hold more than $5 trillion in communications and
technology stocks. Our mutual funds, our 401K plans and IRAs
are stuffed full of high-tech investments. The retirement
security of Americans now depends upon the steady flow of
innovations from technology companies. In turn, those
companies rely on the steady flow of discoveries and trained
work force generated by the scientific community. No science,
no savings.
Scientific research at our universities and national labs
is now a foundation of the economy and thereby vital to the
success of social legislation. But rather than reinforcing
the foundation, Congress is eroding it. That action couldn't
come at a worse time.
America's science infrastructure is in decay--aged science
buildings on our campuses, dated laboratory equipment,
antiquated computers. During the Bush administration, the
Office of Science and Technology Policy estimated the cost of
rebuilding our science infrastructure at $100 billion. The
Clinton administration has done little to address the
problem. The budget Congress is proposing guarantees
continued decay.
Congress must significantly increase science funding.
Senators recognized the need last week when, with the support
of Sens. Trent Lott and Tom Daschle, they passed the Federal
Research Investment Act, which calls for doubling the federal
investment in science by the year 2010. But appropriators
haven't followed through. It's not too late--budgets won't be
settled until October.
For the sake of the country, I hope Congress will recognize
the significant role science plays in society. Without
science, there won't be a surplus.
Mr. EHLERS. The key point is this: when we analyze what is causing
our economic boom of the past few years, the first major cause is
monetary policy, which has largely been headed by Alan Greenspan; next
is tax and regulatory policy, where the Republicans in the Congress
have made tremendous improvements; and the final and very vital cause
is scientific research. If we analyze the economic development taking
place today we will find that over half of all economic development is
directly related to scientific research, whether it is the Internet,
whether it is medical research, any of the other research projects
going on.
Dr. Bromley's thesis is very simple. He says: no science, no surplus.
Why? Because the economic boom we are enjoying now, which has resulted
in the first surpluses in the Federal Government since 1969, is to a
large extent caused by the scientific research that has been done in
the last 2 to 4 decades. If we do not continue to do that research, we
are doing a grave disservice to our children and grandchildren, because
we are condemning them to a United States which will not have as much
economic growth and which will not have the resources and the surplus
which will enable them to enjoy a good economy as we enjoy it today.
Mr. Speaker, I advocate very strongly that we review the
appropriations bills that have passed the House and are before the
Senate, and that we make every effort to increase the funding for
scientific research.
As it stands now, NASA science is slashed by $678 million; science of
the Department of Energy is cut by $116 million; and the National
Science Foundation ends up with $275 million less than requested.
I think it extremely important that we review these bills and that we
increase funding for scientific research so that we may continue to
enjoy not
[[Page H8139]]
only the results of the research, but also the economic benefits that
will arise from the fruits of that research.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) is recognized for 5 minutes.
(Mr. CUMMINGS addressed the House. His remarks will appear hereafter
in the Extensions of Remarks.)
____________________