[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 72 (Wednesday, June 5, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H3182-H3203]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
INVESTING IN AMERICA'S FUTURE ACT OF 2002
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 432 and ask for its immediate consideration.
{time} 1315
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
[[Page H3183]]
H. Res. 432
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4664) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
years 2003, 2004, and 2005 for the National Science
Foundation, and for other purposes. The first reading of the
bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Science. After general debate the
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute
rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill
for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Science now printed in the bill. Each section of
the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall
be considered as read. During consideration of the bill for
amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may
accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the
Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in
the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that
purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed
shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote
in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the
Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The gentleman from New York
(Mr. Reynolds) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern) pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purposes of debate only.
(Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 432 is a fair, open rule
providing for consideration of H.R. 4664, the Investing of America's
Future Act. The purpose of this legislation is to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2003, 2004 and 2005 for the National
Science Foundation.
The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Science. The rule waives all points of order against consideration
of the bill.
Additionally, the rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Science now printed in the
bill be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment,
and provides that the bill shall be considered for amendment by
section. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole has the authority
to accord priority in recognition of Members who have preprinted their
amendments in the Congressional Record.
Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or
without instructions.
As an independent Federal agency, the National Science Foundation's
mission is to support science and engineering among all disciplines.
Currently, the NSF funds research and education activities at more than
2,000 universities, colleges, schools, businesses and other research
institutions throughout the United States.
Federal investment in educating America's youth in the foundation
areas of math, science and technology is the only way to maintain our
competitive edge in a global economy and to create economic prosperity
here at home. The ever changing world of science demands that the
research behind it keep pace with the times.
This legislation will provide a 15 percent annual increase for NSF
through fiscal year 2005, providing critical financial support that
will ensure our Nation's continued advancement in science, education
and research. Much like this Republican-led Congress has kept its
commitment to double funding for the National Institutes of Health,
this legislation will initiate a plan to double NSF moneys over a 5-
year period.
This kind of increase is consistent with President Bush's focus on
education improvements, such as the Math and Science Partnership Act
and the Undergraduate Math and Science Education Improvement Act. This
increase will also supply dollars for the countless major research
equipment projects that have been approved but simply await funding.
Technology, science and research are powerful components in our
development of society. Continually advancing science and research will
discover new cures for diseases, improve our quality of life and create
jobs and economic growth across America. As someone who hails from a
State and region that has fully embraced the value and potential this
type of scientific research offers, I can attest to how important this
investment is to our future.
NSF-funded projects often bring national and even international
attention to towns and cities across America, and sustained research
efforts and collaborations have meant growth and new employment
opportunities in those areas. This ripple effect energizes communities
and attracts young Americans to fields and job markets like science and
engineering, areas that are key to making American industry more
competitive across the globe.
The long-time president of Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
physicist Karl Taylor Compton, once said, ``Modern science has
developed to give mankind a way of securing a more abundant life.''
Through this important investment in science, technology and research,
this Congress can help ensure for the American people and communities
across our Nation a more abundant life.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this fair and open rule
and the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) for yielding me
the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, this is a fair and open rule for a noncontroversial
bill. H.R. 4664, Investing in America's Future Act, will reauthorize
the National Science Foundation, including an increase in funding for
the NSF by 15 percent for each of the next three fiscal years. This
increase will result in the doubling of the NSF budget over the next 5
years.
NSF is a critical institution whose mission is to promote the
progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity and
welfare; and to secure the national defense.
In doing so, NSF has worked with and funded research institutions all
across the country. For example, NSF has granted over $311 million to
Massachusetts last year, including $3.3 million to the Worcester
Polytechnic Institute, and $1.9 million to the University of
Massachusetts at Dartmouth to fund very, very important projects that
are vital to our national security and our national defense.
This reauthorization bill was unanimously referred to the House by
the Committee on Science. The funding level called for in this
legislation is above the President's request, and it addresses the
growing imbalance between Federal support of biomedical research and
physical sciences research. It also helps to ensure that America's
present and future scientists and engineers are globally competitive.
The 21st century holds a great deal of promise, but there are also
serious challenges ahead. Fortunately, the United States has some of
the finest researchers and research institutions in the world. We must
ensure that the scientific community in this country has the resources
they need to meet our challenges.
The bill before us today I think is an important step in that effort.
Mr. Speaker, I commend the members of the Committee on Science for
their bipartisan work on this important bill. I ask Members to support
this open rule and to support the Investing in America's Future Act.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Smith), the sponsor of this important legislation.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, let me just say, this legislation
is
[[Page H3184]]
named the Investing in America's Future Act because that is really what
it is. Basic research is what is needed to develop new ideas for
products that the world demands. It is how we develop ways to increase
the efficiency and productivity in the way we produce those certain
products. Basic research, which NSF has done such a tremendous job in
its peer review, is really key to not only our economic security but
our national security. Smart weapon technology come from basic
research.
Let me for just a moment quote a previous statement from NIH, the
National Institutes of Health. They said if you do not do more
research, basic research coming from NSF, we are going to have to set
up our own division for basic research in NIH. Adequate basic research
is key to our health, key to our economy, key to our national security.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
In preparation for the discussion of the bill itself, I would just
like to offer some general comments about the nature of basic research
and the importance of funding basic research because that often raises
questions in the mind of the public and, consequently, questions in the
minds of the Congress.
Basic research is that research which is done to understand the basic
underpinnings of science, the basic underpinnings of the nature of our
universe and how it operates. It is very broadly based. It is not
specifically directed toward any particular problem in society and
sometimes not even toward a problem in the sciences. It is an effort to
really learn more about the universe and how it and all its composite
parts work.
That makes it very difficult to defend in the political process, but
let me simply point out to my colleagues some of the results of basic
research that we take for granted today.
In the 1930s, there was some research done on a very esoteric topic
called stimulated coherent emission of radiation. This was theoretical
work. It was very low cost work. The National Science Foundation did
not exist. It was done by a professor and a few others working
together, and they deduced that it was possible to have stimulated
emission of light where one would have one photon, one particle of
light, hitting an atom in an excited state, and one would have another
photon come out that was exactly like the one that came in, and yet the
one that came in would be unaffected. So one obtains double the amount
of light and the light was coherent; that is, the wavelengths matched
and the light was in phase.
This was essentially an unremarkable result in 1930 because no one
had yet imagined a way in which it could be done, but after World War
II, during which we learned a lot about more advanced physics, and
researchers began investigating this with microwave radiation and
discovered, in fact, it did work; this work was done by Charles Townes,
a good friend of mine, a good physicist, who is now at Berkeley. He
discovered that he could direct a microwave photon at an excited atom
and get two microwave photons out that were coherent, traveling in
exactly the same direction, in phase, and with identical frequencies.
He immediately recognized that this could also lead to light
amplification by stimulated emission of radiation, and so the laser was
developed about 1960, or in that time frame. It was a laboratory
curiosity.
I remember the first time I saw a laser and played with it. It was
almost a toy, and we had fun with it. What an amazing thing, that one
could amplify light! And yet everyone today is familiar with lasers;
They have become ubiquitous. We use them for everything from lining up
sewers to making certain that the tiles in the ceiling of a building
are level, to conducting surgery of various types, on to many other
uses, cutting metals and cutting cloth. Most likely the dresses and
suits that are being worn here today were cut by laser initially before
they were sewn together. All of this is based on the initial research
work done in 1930.
Let me take another example, nuclear magnetic resonance, an esoteric
bit of research which occurred while I was in graduate school. Who
really cared about the nuclear spins and magnetic moments of hydrogen
nuclei? Yet that nuclear magnetic resonance work which forms the basis
for what we today call magnetic resonance imaging, a fantastic medical
advance. diagnostic tool, the MRI, which look inside our bodies and
tell us whether we have cancer, or a torn muscle, or something else.
Similarly, the CT scan came out of research in high-energy elementary
particle physics, an esoteric topic as far removed from everyday life
as we can imagine.
{time} 1330
The question is, so what? The point is simply that during the past
decade the marvelous economic expansion we enjoyed was, according to
Alan Greenspan and other experts, almost entirely based on the basic
research that we funded some 30 to 50 years ago. If we want to continue
to enjoy economic growth and expansion, if we want to continue to lead
the world, we have to also continue leading the world in basic
research.
That is what this bill is all about, continuing to lead the world in
basic research so that our children and grandchildren are going to have
the same economic advantages that we enjoy today, just as our parents
and our grandparents invested in basic research so that we could enjoy
the fruits of that today. That is what this bill is about.
That is why the Congress must pass this bill so that we adequately
fund basic research and continue the economic base and growth that we
enjoy today, and so that we can continue to expand our basic
understanding of the universe and all it contains, and learn about the
scientific processes that constantly occur.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. And this is the first time I have had him yield to me in his
capacity as a member of the Committee on Rules. We are all very proud
of that accomplishment for him and thank him for his great leadership
there and on this bill, which is a very important one.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in support of the
legislation, and I commend the Committee on Science for their excellent
work on this reauthorization for the National Science Foundation
funding. For a long time, our colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), has sponsored a bill and given us all the
opportunity to register our support for drastically increasing the
funding of the National Science Foundation. I am so pleased now that
the Committee on Science has taken up that leadership, and the
considerable leadership of the chairman, et cetera, of the committee to
make this a possibility; that we would be on a path to doubling the
National Science Foundation budget.
Mr. Speaker, I serve as a member of the House Subcommittee on Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education of the Committee on
Appropriations. A number of years ago, we set off on this path to
double the funding for the National Institutes of Health. We are in our
last year of that doubling effort. It was very important to the health
of the American people. So, too, is the doubling of the National
Science Foundation. Not only do we have to do this, but we should do
more.
We had the Tech Talent Act, which encourages young people and mentors
them in studying math and science so that we have the seed corn for us
to have the scientists who will maintain and improve and enhance our
technological base, and as well, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Ehlers) said, our economic base as well.
Our progress in the National Institutes of Health, the Human Genome
Project and other progress, really springs from the improved
instrumentation that came from the technology side of it, the hard
sciences, physical sciences side of it, the nonbiomedical science. So
we all benefit across the board in terms of biomedical research, which
is so important to the American people; the economic success, which is
so important to our country; and also the fulfillment of the young
people who have the talent and should be encouraged to study math and
science and become scientists.
[[Page H3185]]
So I am absolutely delighted today that in this bipartisan way we can
come to the floor. I commend the distinguished chairman of the
committee and the subcommittee, as well as the Members on both sides of
the aisle, for making this a reality for the Congress to take this vote
and make it a reality for our country; and I will do everything in my
power working with them to ensure that this can be translated not only
into an authorization but an appropriation as well.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise today in support of the rule and as a cosponsor and
strong supporter of H.R. 4664, the National Science Foundation
Authorization Act, or Investing in America's Future Act.
I want to commend the members of the Committee on Rules for this open
rule, and the chairman of the Committee on Science, the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Boehlert); and the ranking member, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Hall) of the Committee on Science; as well as the chairman
of the Subcommittee on Research, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Smith); and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie
Bernice Johnson), for expeditiously ushering this bill through that
committee and to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, a distinguished committee, chaired by Senators Gary Hart
and Warren Rudman, released a report on national security at the
beginning of 2001. While it did not receive a lot of public attention
at the time, the Hart-Rudman report has been revisited often since
September 11. One aspect of the report with particular relevance to the
bill we are considering today is its finding and recommendation on the
importance of basic research. According to the Hart-Rudman report on
national security, and I quote, ``The U.S. Government has seriously
underfunded basic scientific research in recent years. The quality of
the U.S. education system, too, has fallen well behind those of scores
of other nations. The inadequacies of our systems of research and
education pose a greater threat to U.S. national security over the next
quarter century than any potential conventional war that we might
imagine.''
The report goes on to recommend doubling the Federal Government's
investment in science and technology research and development by 2010.
Mr. Speaker, the bill we pass today takes an important step in the
right direction.
In addition to supporting basic research at colleges and universities
nationwide, the NSF works to ensure that American teachers and
professors have the skills, training, and equipment to prepare future
scientists and researchers. This is critical as science and technology
become increasingly important to our economy, our health, our
environment, and our national security.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and this bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
say that this is a good rule. It is an open rule. It is nice to have an
open rule. More importantly, this is a good bill and deserves the
support of all our colleagues.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Since the dawn of man, the human race has been ingrained with a
fascination and need to slip beyond its boundaries and explore the
unknown. From across the continents to the depths of the ocean and to
the far reaches of space, that pioneer spirit continues to this day.
The National Science Foundation embraces that spirit with its record
of excellence in research, education, technological advancement, and
discovery. They make possible the pioneer spirit within us all.
I ask my colleagues to join me in supplying the necessary tools to
the National Science Foundation so they can continue along the path of
important contributions to America and to mankind. Their programs are
an important demonstration of how efficient government investment can
return great dividends to society. There is no better time to invest in
America's future.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). Pursuant to House Resolution
432 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 4664.
{time} 1339
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 4664) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2003, 2004,
and 2005 for the National Science Foundation, and for other purposes,
with Mr. Isakson in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to bring to the floor today
H.R. 4664, the Invest in America's Future Act, which was approved
unanimously by the Committee on Science. This landmark bill would put
the National Science Foundation on a track to double its budget over
the next 5 years, while, at the same time, imposing strict new
management requirements to ensure that the National Science Foundation
continues to spend our money wisely.
This Congress has already demonstrated its faith in and reliance on
the National Science Foundation several times in recent months, and I
hope and expect that we will continue to do so today. Earlier this
year, by the overwhelming margin of 400 to 12, we passed a
cybersecurity bill that relied on NSF to fund the research needed to
protect our Nation's computer systems and networks. At this time last
year, we passed by voice vote a bill to initiate the President's math
and science education partnerships, a program that NSF is now beginning
to carry out; and we have passed appropriation bills that have included
generous, if still insufficient, increases for the National Science
Foundation.
So the 107th Congress is already on record as acknowledging the vital
role played by NSF in both research and education, and we have already
recognized the Foundation's need for additional funds. Today, we take
the next logical step.
The scale of NSF's budget today is simply not commensurate with the
breadth and importance of its mission. Congress reached that same
conclusion about the National Institutes of Health, and we have
followed through by doubling that research agency's budget. But health
research is not the only kind of research on which our Nation depends.
And, indeed, even health research itself depends on advances outside of
biomedicine, the kinds of advances that produce new research tools and
new understandings of chemistry and physics.
So it is time to give NSF, a much smaller agency than NIH, a budget
commensurate with its mission. When we look at the new fields of
science and engineering that will boost our economy in this new
century, fields like nanotechnology, where do we turn to ensure that
our Nation's researchers stay at the cutting edge? The National Science
Foundation. When we look at the field of information technology, which
facilitates every activity in today's economy, where do we turn to
ensure that the U.S. remains at the cutting edge? NSF. When we consider
our even more urgent need for a highly skilled technologically-literate
workforce, where do we turn to ensure that our education system, from
kindergarten through postgraduate work, is preparing the people we
need? You
[[Page H3186]]
guessed it, the National Science Foundation.
We turn to the National Science Foundation to solve some of our most
pressing problems. We cannot turn from NSF when we decide where to
invest Federal funds. It is time to give NSF the money it needs.
But do not take my word for it. Do not even take the word of all the
university and research groups that have endorsed this bill. They are
the obvious beneficiaries. Instead, listen to the major industrial
entities that are backing this bill, groups like the National
Association of Manufacturers, the Semiconductor Industry Association,
and Technet. They understand that federally funded basic research,
research which industry has little incentive to fund, is needed to keep
the American economy humming.
But some may still wonder, despite the support for raising NSF's
budget, whether the agency can handle such a significant increase. I
would argue that there is no agency better placed to handle it. NSF is
a lean agency that spends little of its budget on administration. It is
the only agency in the entire Federal Government that received a green
light rating from the Office of Management and Budget for the quality
of its operations. It is repeatedly cited as a model of how Federal
agencies should be run.
But despite NSF's stellar record, this bill will not allow the agency
to rest on its laurels. The bill imposes several new management
requirements to ensure that Federal taxpayer dollars are wisely spent.
{time} 1345
There is a new report NSF must submit to Congress explaining how it
decided to allocate its funding. There is a new requirement to ensure
that the public has greater access to National Science Board meetings.
There is a new joint NSF-NASA advisory committee on astronomy research.
Most importantly, there is a new process to prioritize major
equipment projects and to manage them more consistently. Right now,
there is no way for anyone outside the foundation to understand how
these large projects, like new telescopes and research stations, are
selected or ranked.
Under our bill, the director and the board will have to agree on a
list of projects in priority order that will be submitted to the
Congress. Actual budget proposals may still have to depart from that
order, but at least we will all be starting with the same information
in evaluating such budget proposals.
Mr. Chairman, this is a responsible bill, it is a needed bill, it is
a bill that has garnered widespread support in committee and outside
this Chamber, and it deserves support from all of us today. In passing
this bill, we do nothing more, and nothing less, than reaffirm some
basic principles: That being the world leader in research is important
to our Nation's health, defense, and economic well-being; that
improving science and math education is critically important; that a
great Nation should not skimp on its investments to improve human
understanding of natural phenomena.
It is through NSF that we turn those principles into actions. To
paraphrase Daniel Webster, it is a small agency, but there are those of
us who love it. I urge support for this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Investing in America's Future Act
of 2002, H.R. 4664, a 3-year reauthorization bill for the National
Science Foundation.
The bill represents a bipartisan effort by the Committee on Science
to provide the level of resources necessary to sustain the important
work of the National Science Foundation in science and engineering
research and education.
I want to congratulate the chairman of the Subcommittee on Research,
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) and the ranking Democratic member,
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) for their
efforts to craft this bill. I also thank the chairman of the Committee
on Science, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) for his
leadership in working closely with this side of the aisle in developing
the bill.
NSF is our premier agency for support of basic research at academic
institutions in the physical sciences and the nonmedical biological
sciences, in mathematics, and in engineering. Basic research
discoveries launch new industries that bring returns to the economy far
exceeding the original public investment.
The Internet, which emerged from the research projects funding by DOD
and NSF, strikingly illustrates the payoff potential of such research
expenditures. In fact, over the past 50 years, half of U.S. economic
productivity can be attributed to the technological innovation and the
science that has supported it.
Unfortunately, the simple truth is that during the 1990s we
underinvested in the fields that NSF supports.
A recent report from the National Academy of Sciences provides
specific examples that make this case. The report shows that between
1993 and 1999 Federal research support at academic institutions fell by
14 percent in mathematics, by 7 percent in physics, by 2 percent in
chemistry, and by 12 percent in electrical engineering.
Inadequate funding for basic research in such important fields
imposes a price on society, because new ideas are lost that would
otherwise underpin future technological advances.
Of even more importance, anemic funding of academic science and
engineering research reduces the numbers of new young scientists and
engineers who constitute the essential element necessary to ensure the
Nation's future economic strength and security.
H.R. 4664 authorizes funding growth for NSF of 15 percent per year
for 3 years, bringing the total authorization level to $7.3 billion by
the third year. This follows a funding path to double NSF's budget over
5 years, as was proposed by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie
Bernice Johnson) in the NSF authorization bill she introduced, and I
cosponsored, last year.
We were not alone in calling for substantial funding increases. Such
prominent figures as Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan, former House
Speaker Gingrich, and former presidential science advisor Allan Bromley
have pointed out the importance of increasing support for basic
research in science and engineering.
The coalition for National Science Funding, a group of 80 scientific,
engineering, and professional societies, universities, and
corporations, specifically called for providing a 15 percent funding
increase for the NSF this year as the next step in doubling the NSF
budget.
The funding growth proposed by H.R. 4664 will enable the foundation
to expand its investment in cutting-edge research initiatives and shore
up its core research programs.
Equally important, the bill will increase efforts to improve the
skills of K-12 science and math teachers, develop better science and
math curricular materials, and attract more women and minorities to
careers in science and engineering.
H.R. 4664 is an important bill that will help ensure the Nation
maintains a vigorous basic research enterprise, which is an essential
component for a strong economy for our national security.
Mr. Chairman, I commend this measure to my colleagues and ask for
their support and its passage in the House.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time
to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) to control the time
for the remainder of the debate.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Tennessee?
There was no objection.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I support this legislation to
increase the National Science Foundation budget by 15 percent for next
year. This bill will put us on the path to double the NSF budget over
the next 5 years.
Science inspires us to conquer the unknown, invent what does not
exist, and improve what already exists. It all begins with research.
President Bush's budget proposal recognized the importance of science
funding with a 9 percent increase in science and technology spending.
That is the
[[Page H3187]]
good news. But among the various science agencies, the increases in
amounts varied greatly.
The National Institutes of Health, NIH, received the lion's share of
funding under the administration's proposal. The NIH budget has
increased to a point where it is now larger than the rest of the
budgets of the science agencies put together, and the proposed increase
alone in NIH funding is larger than the research budget of the National
Science Foundation.
Biomedical research is important and the NIH should receive adequate
funding. The administration's proposed budget rightly recognized the
importance of our physical health. But, Mr. Chairman, our citizens'
economic health is just as important as their physical health.
The NSF funds the cutting edge research that allows the U.S. to
dominate the high technology field. Our commitment to the funding in
the bill ensures that our technological preeminence will continue.
Scientific research at the NSF has greatly enhanced our lives and has
advanced science and technology. Consider the benefits of better
weather forecasting, the saved lives that result from MRIs, the promise
of faster semiconductors, and breakthroughs in nanotechnology that will
drive our scientific efforts in the new century.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4664 improves the quality of math and science
education with $200 million in funding for the Math and Science
Partnerships Initiative, which encourages more students to enter
graduate level science studies.
In our technology-driven economy, math and science skills are
essential. If we want to prepare the next generation with the skills
they need for success, we must increase their knowledge of science.
Either we continue to invest in the sciences, or risk losing the
ability to lead the world in research. This legislation recognizes the
priority of research and development, and I urge my colleagues to
support it.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to
commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Hall), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), and the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey) for allowing me to share this time, and for
their leadership and imagination in bringing H.R. 4664, the Investing
in America's Future Act of 2002 before us today for our consideration.
I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this important piece of
legislation. I have long been a passionate advocate for the National
Science Foundation and the work they oversee. This work begins the
laudable goal of doubling NSF's budget over the next 5 years.
Competition for NSF grant funding is very intense. Every year NSF
receives about 30,000 proposals for research in education projects. Of
these, about one-third only are funded. These grants usually go to
colleges, universities, academic consortia, nonprofit institutions, and
small businesses. The NSF also supports collaborative projects between
universities and industry, as well as U.S. participation in
international cooperative research and education efforts.
By increasing the amount of money available for grants, the NSF will
be able to greatly enhance opportunities for scientific inquiry, and
will generate invaluable progress in a wide range of fields. The
resulting discoveries will help drive economic growth and enhance the
quality of life for all Americans.
NSF is the second largest source of federal funds for academic
research. Students of mathematics, science, the environment and
engineering will be better able to compete in the global marketplace
because the investments made by NSF will generate exciting
opportunities to enhance their studies.
I believe our Nation is well served by increasing the resources
available for NSF. For these and many other reasons, I am proud to
support this bill and I know this measure will pass the House today
with overwhelming bipartisan support. This day will mark a day when we
make the future of this country immeasurably brighter and bigger
because investing in science is always a good investment.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the angel of NIST.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the guardian of the Committee on
Science for yielding the time to me.
It is with great pleasure that I rise as a very proud cosponsor to
speak on behalf of H.R. 4664, the National Science Foundation
Reauthorization Act. I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert)
and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) and the ranking members for
their leadership on this issue. This committee has had a congenial
disposition; but the bipartisan nature under which we have operated to
produce this bill is a true tribute to the leadership and consensus-
building skills on both sides of the aisle. I hope we can continue to
work together to produce this kind of legislation.
Mr. Chairman, 5 years ago we made a historic pledge to double the
budget of the National Institutes of Health. It took a lot of hard work
to get the initial commitment, and even more to see it through. Despite
a war on terrorism and an economic downturn, Congress and the
administration kept its word and fulfilled that promise. The NIH is
funding twice the work it did a mere 5 years ago. That is a tremendous
accomplishment. In the 21st century, revolutions in our understanding
of biology will rival those of physics in the 20th, and work sponsored
by the NIH must continue to be a priority.
However, their initiatives cannot and must not be pursued
exclusively. Science has become intricately interconnected; discoveries
in one drive innovations in others. Without adequate research into the
underlying fields of physics and chemistry, advancements in biology and
medicine will stall. If we expect the myriad achievements of recent
years to continue, we must support the underpinning science and
engineering more robustly. As such, I believe we need a more balanced
portfolio and need to champion the traditional areas of research, as
well as the exciting new projects that have generated so many headlines
of late.
{time} 1400
In addition, we must do a better job of training the next generation
of scientists and engineers. Fewer and fewer Americans are undertaking
technical careers, accepting the torch from elder scientists and
building on the accomplishments of generations past. We have made up
for this shortfall largely by relying on foreign students and post-docs
to fill the ever widening void. This is a poor long-term solution, and
we must find ways to arrest the decline of American scientists.
The National Science Foundation is uniquely positioned to accomplish
both of these goals. As the premier supporter of the overall scientific
enterprise, the NSF has the exclusive ability to balance research and
education dollars. They already reach across the entire scientific
spectrum, touching all of the major disciplines, and can ensure
underfunded areas of science and technology receive adequate support.
They are also the primary Federal agency when it comes to science
education. They more than anyone else are responsible for supporting
new scientists in all of the physical disciplines, and they are
prepared to target traditionally underrepresented groups to fill the
gaps.
I myself had the opportunity to work with NSF on the Congressional
Commission on the Advancement of Women, Minorities and Persons with
Disability in terms of recognizing the important contribution that they
can make to the development of our next generation of scientists and
engineers. As our society becomes more and more technologically
focused, we must ensure that our educational system is training our
youth to meet the rigorous demands of the future. The NSF has a vital
role to play. I know that they are up to the task.
What is more, the NSF has consistently scored at the top of all
government agencies when it comes to efficient and effective use of
resources. The GAO routinely gives them favorable evaluations. They are
one of only a few agencies to successfully comply with GPRA
requirements. They have all the tools, and they know how to use
[[Page H3188]]
them. All they need are the resources. With this bill, they will have
them.
I have been a consistent advocate of an increased science portfolio.
This is the way to go. The NSF deserves our support. I urge my
colleagues to support this bill.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the NSF reauthorization. H.R. 4664
is a good bill, it is a bipartisan bill; and I want to compliment
Chairman Boehlert, Chairman Smith, and the ranking members for closely
working together so that both sides are well represented in this
legislation. Even during these tight budget times, investing in basic
research like that at NSF is a wise and fiscally-prudent decision. I
strongly believe we must make significant long-term investments in this
Nation's sciences. This bill does just that.
The need for increased funding at NSF is clear. Recent data published
by the National Academy of Sciences on Federal funding for basic
research shows us that we are not meeting today's challenges. Sadly,
there is strong evidence of declining basic research funding in many of
the physical science areas. However, since NSF is the source of 36
percent of the Federal funding for basic research that is performed at
universities and colleges in the physical sciences, we now have a
chance to reverse course.
In my home State of California, NSF partners with the University of
California on numerous research proposals in the physical sciences. I
know that this bill will continue to support those needed partnerships
for our long-term science and research needs. It is clear that in this
instance, the returns to the Federal Government far exceed our public
investment. That is why I urge my colleagues to support this bill to
increase the NSF budget.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
(Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I would like to add to the comments I made a moment ago under the
discussion for the rule but apply those comments specifically to the
National Science Foundation.
Over the past decade, we have had some interesting trends in the
funding of scientific research in the United States. However, we have
failed to keep pace with that of other nations. At the moment, we are
spending less on research compared to GDP in the United States than
Japan does and the gap is increasing, not decreasing. Even worse, we
are spending less compared to our GDP than Germany does. Even worse, we
are rapidly being overtaken by South Korea. We are losing ground. Yet
we are supposed to be the superpower, the world's leader, not only in
military might but also in research and advancement. We have to change
that trend. We made a good step in that direction a few years ago when
we doubled the NIH budget over a period of 5 years. It is high time we
do precisely the same for the National Science Foundation.
Just to illustrate the impact of what has happened and how things
have gotten out of balance, I have here a very small chart, which I
hope my colleagues can read, and at least see the trend lines, which
shows very clearly what has happened to NIH, as shown on the top line.
A few years ago NIH was bundled fairly closely to NASA and Department
of Energy research. We decided to double it, and it has shot up
exponentially as happens when you double things, whereas NASA is
holding its own or slightly down, and DOE, the Department of Energy,
has gone down.
We are spending less on research in the Department of Energy now than
we did 10 years ago, in real dollars. The National Science Foundation,
our most important basic research entity, is struggling along at the
bottom of the chart. It had slight increases over the past decade, but
very slight. I maintain that that is out of balance. As the rate of NIH
goes up, NSF should also go up, because the National Institutes of
Health builds its research on the basic research that is done under the
auspices of the National Science Foundation. They go to the well of
this basic research periodically and build on what has been developed
there. But if they go to the well and the well is empty, all the money
that we have spent for NIH is not going to count for much. It is
essential that we proceed with the doubling that is proposed in this
bill for the National Science Foundation. I commend Chairman Boehlert
and Chairman Smith for leading the charge in this effort. It is
something that we must do and that we can do.
To those who are worried about budget busting, let me simply point
out that this year's increase in the National Institutes of Health is
greater than doubling the NSF budget will be. In other words, this
year's increase in NIH is greater than the total current budget of the
National Science Foundation. At the very least, we can easily afford to
double the NSF budget; and by doing that over 5 years, we are spending
one-fifth of what we have been spending each year to increase NIH.
This is a good bill. I urge that my colleagues vote for it. I urge
that we pass this bill and put this doubling program into effect.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
(Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time and Chairman Boehlert and Ranking Member Hall and the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Eddie Bernice Johnson) for their efforts in getting this bill. I am
proud to be a cosponsor as well.
I rise in strong support of H.R. 4664, Investing in America's Future
Act. This legislation, that will increase the funding for the National
Science Foundation, is critical and it is probably more critical at
this time than anyone can imagine. I believe that maintaining our
Nation's global scientific and economic leadership provides the best
justification for funding basic research, and that is really what we
are talking about here. I also believe that a solid academic foundation
in math and science education is critical to our success as a Nation in
the 21st century.
As the lead source of Federal funding for basic research at colleges
and universities, NSF supports research and educational programs that
are crucial to technological advances in the private sector and for
training our next generation of scientists and engineers. NSF funds
cutting-edge research in science and technology that is critical in the
United States. The research funded by the foundation has played a
pivotal role in raising the standards of living in the United States as
well as around the world.
As we have already heard from others, with a very small portion of
Federal spending, the National Science Foundation has had a powerful
impact on national science and engineering. Every dollar invested in
this agency returns manifold in its worth in economic growth. For
example, over 25 percent of the Federal support for academic
institutions for basic research is provided through the National
Science Foundation and almost 50 percent of the funding for nonmedical
research at universities is provided through the National Science
Foundation. NSF also provides 46 percent of the basic research in
engineering performed at colleges and universities and also helps train
more than 25,000 graduate students each year. I am pleased with the
accomplishments that NSF has made in research and education
initiatives, and I strongly support the doubling of NSF's budget by the
proposed increase of 15 percent over the next 3 years in pursuit of
this effort.
As the former superintendent of schools of my home State of North
Carolina, I have worked for many years to improve science and
mathematics education in our schools. We need better science and
mathematics education in the K-12 classrooms if we are going to have it
in university students. Quality instruction is the key to helping
students learn in these critical fields. At a time when we are trying
to improve the quality and quantity of science and mathematics in
America, appropriate investments in NSF is critical to enabling our
students to compete in today's knowledge-based economy. This increase
in NSF budget will
[[Page H3189]]
help ensure that improving science and mathematics education remains a
national priority. I urge the vote and signature by the President.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Grucci).
(Mr. GRUCCI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GRUCCI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for H.R.
4664, the Investing in America's Future Act. This bill would
reauthorize the National Science Foundation at its highest level for
the next 5 years, placing it in an unprecedented doubling track. I
thank Chairman Smith and Chairman Boehlert for the time on the floor
today to speak on this very important issue and for their leadership on
this increasingly important issue.
I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important legislation. H.R. 4664
not only takes a decisive step to doubling the funding for the National
Science Foundation but also is a clear example of the support of this
House in scientific discovery and growth. Now more than ever science
and technology are leading the way to not only expand America and make
it the best it can be but also to protect our citizens and improve our
homeland security. Technologies such as radiation detectors and
highest-level x-ray are keeping our homes, our businesses, and our
transportation systems safe every day. But these critical technologies
originate from the same place, from the Federal laboratories and
university research that benefit from the National Science Foundation.
Basic research is key to generating these ground-breaking and important
technologies that we utilize in our lives every day.
My district is the home to leaders in basic research, the Brookhaven
National Laboratory and the State University of New York at Stony
Brook. These great institutions have benefited greatly from the support
and funding from the National Science Foundation, advancing their
endeavors and educational opportunities for students and scientists
alike.
{time} 1415
I am pleased that the bill includes important language clarifying the
selection process of the Major Research Equipment Account. These large
scale research projects are some of the best science our Nation has to
offer, and it is imperative that a clear selective process is in place
with congressional oversight. I thank the gentleman from New York
(Chairman Boehlert) for his leadership on this issue and for including
this language in the bill.
The National Science Foundation represents the best in math and
science education. In order for our Nation to remain a world leader in
discovery and innovation, we must strive to educate our younger
generation, engaging them in math and science activities.
It is no surprise that the bill is entitled the Investing in
America's Future Act, because that is exactly what we will succeed in
doing by passing this legislation. Educational programs funded by the
National Science Foundation offer students opportunities for exciting
studies in innovative fields of learning. From as early as grade school
through to the post-doctoral level, the National Science Foundation
provides the much-needed support to those students striving to achieve
in the science field.
Again, I am proud to be a cosponsor of this very important
legislation and thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert)
for the time to speak here today. I look forward to the passage of this
exciting bill and urge a ``yes'' vote from my colleagues.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Baird).
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4664, to authorize funds for
the National Science Foundation. As a proud cosponsor of this
legislation, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman
Boehlert) and the ranking members for their excellent work on this; but
I also want to reinforce my strong support for the $50 million funding
for the Advanced Technological Education Program in FY 2002 and $55
million for the program in 2003.
The Advanced Technological Education Program is an NSF program
designed to help community colleges train high-tech workers. It is the
only NSF program focused solely on community colleges. This program
provides funds for both existing and new ATE programs.
These programs will become increasingly important as our economy
becomes more dependent on technologically skilled workers. In fact,
every single one of the top 10 fastest-growing occupations identified
by the Department of Labor will require specialized knowledge in the
fields of math and science. ATE programs will fund technology, math and
science programs that will directly contribute to student success in
those fields.
A few weeks ago my colleague the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Price) and I introduced H.R. 4680, the Science Undergraduate Community
College Education Enhancement Act, or, as we call it, SUCCEED. This
bill will further direct ATE money to important science, math and
technology two-year education programs.
Almost half of all college students in America are enrolled in
community colleges, but many of the core math and science programs at
these institutions are now severely underfunded. This is unacceptable,
especially at a time when our knowledge-based economy depends on a
workforce with a solid grounding in math and science.
The SUCCEED Act will function in several areas. First of all, it will
expand the scope of existing grant programs to not only focus on the
advanced upper division courses, but on the basics in math and
technology skills and science skills that are necessary for success in
more advanced course work.
In addition and importantly, it will expand partnerships between 2-
year and 4-year institutions. Increasingly, our 2-year community
colleges are partnering with 4-year institutions, and the SUCCEED Act
will provide funding for integrated research between community and 4-
year colleges.
This bill will also provide access to state-of-the-art equipment for
our classrooms. We cannot expect our students in the community colleges
to learn the kind of advanced skills they need if we do not have the
fundamental infrastructure and equipment for them to learn those
skills.
Finally, this bill will establish an external advisory committee to
study how the effectiveness of this legislation is proceeding and to
disseminate critical information to share that with other 2-year
institutions.
Again, I want to thank the staff of the Committee on Science for
their outstanding work, and my own staff member, Ms. Kate Sinner, for
her work on this. Thanks again to the gentleman from New York (Chairman
Boehlert).
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank everyone involved with this, but none
more than the gentleman I am about to introduce to consume the balance
of our time. The gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Smith) is the spark
plug behind this legislation. He is serving with great distinction on
that very important Subcommittee on Research, and he constantly reminds
us every single day about the importance of the work we are about.
Before yielding the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan
(Chairman Smith), I would like to note that we have a staff that is
second to none on the Committee on Science, Republicans and Democrats,
all professionals working well together to fashion the type of product
that we can bring to the floor with a great deal of pride. This is one
such product, and the man most responsible for it is the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Smith).
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Smith) be allowed to control the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) is recognized
for 9 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert)
for those gracious remarks.
[[Page H3190]]
Mr. Chairman, I feel privileged to be allowed to be the sponsor of
this legislation, H.R. 4664. But, as we all know, we have a fantastic
scientific community out there, and NSF is one of the lead agencies
that has done such a tremendous job. In our committee, it has been a
bipartisan support, right from the get-go, with the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), the ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Research.
The last time this agency was authorized was in 1998 as part of a 3-
year bill that expired at the end of fiscal year 2000. That is why I
think it is so important that we move ahead with this legislation
today, to make sure that the House has the kind of oversight of all
agencies of government, as it is destined to do.
Let me just say that it is so clear from every evaluation and every
economic analysis that the Federal investment in science and technology
is about as good an investment as you can possibly make with the
Americans' taxpayer money to make sure that we have the basic research
for national security. Smart bombs and smart weapons and the
technological ability of our economic security come from this kind of
basic research.
It is also important for our economy, and we have been credited by
Mr. Greenspan and many others that our economic strength is derived
from the basic research that we have worked on over the last 50 years,
and certainly not the least is the strength of the health in the United
States.
I would like to give one quote that is very interesting, and that is
from Harold Varmus, the former director of NIH. He said, ``Congress is
not addressing with significant vigor the compelling needs for
adequately funding the National Science Foundation, which is the basis
of a lot of the research and a lot of the tools they are using at
NIH.''
This bill is the product of 2 years of hearings and examinations of
NSF activities by the Committee on Science and our Subcommittee on
Research; and during this time the committee received input from
prominent scientists, economists, government officials and from other
experts with an interest in improving federally funded basic research.
In the end, we arrived at three principal conclusions. One, NSF is a
model government agency with an exemplary record of supporting basic
research within a peer-reviewed, competitive grant process that funds
only the best cutting-edge research, and does so using under 5 percent
of the total budget in overhead costs.
Second, as a relatively small Federal agency responsible for just 4
percent of the total Federal research development expenditures, NSF-
funded research has led to a myriad of discoveries that have improved,
as I mentioned, public health, strengthened our economy, and enhanced
our lives and well-being in many ways we could not have imagined 30
years ago.
Three, a number of areas within NSF programs require additional
funding to assure continued advancements in the Nation's scientific
enterprise. Among them are funding new education initiatives,
alleviating grant pressure within a system that cannot fund over 30
percent of highly rated research proposals.
Again, of all of these highly rated research proposals, we only end
up being able to fund 30 percent of the excellent ideas that are coming
in from all of the universities and research facilities. It is for
these reasons that the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert), the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), I and every member of the Committee on
Science called for significant increases in support for NSF in this
legislation.
I say this as a true fiscal conservative that strongly supports the
President's efforts to keep nondefense discretionary spending in check
so we can fully focus our budget on the Federal Government's number one
priority of defending our Nation, and basic research is part of that
responsibility.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Gutknecht).
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill today. Let me say this
about research and what we do in the United States, and I think it
needs to be said. Research is a very important part of what we do here
in the United States, and it is a very important part of our economic
growth.
About half of the economic growth in the United States today is as a
result of research which has been funded in the past. We represent
about 4 percent of the world's population, but we represent about 44
percent of the money that is spent on basic research. That is
important, and there is a correlation.
I was fortunate to go and visit some of our national labs. They truly
are national treasures. What they do through the National Science
Foundation, not only through our labs but our universities around the
country, makes a big, big difference.
A few years ago I was privileged to meet with a fellow by the name of
Gene Fry. Now, Gene Fry is a researcher at a little company called 3M.
Now, this probably was not original, but he said something very
important that day. He said if we knew what we were doing, it would not
be research.
There is a lot of truth to that. A lot of the projects that we fund
at the beginning it is hard to defend. But ultimately the reason that
we live in the world we live in today is because brave legislatures in
the past and brave business people in the past have been willing to
invest in projects that may not have made a lot of sense at the time.
I think we have to have the courage to stand up and say research is a
very important responsibility to the Federal Government. We get a huge
rate of return on the money that we invest in research, and we will
determine today what kind of a world our children will live in. This is
an important bill. I am happy to rise in support of it.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to yield 6 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), the ranking member
of the Subcommittee on Research.
(Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to
revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in
strong support of H.R. 4664, the National Science Foundation
Authorization Act of 2002. I want to thank the gentleman from New York
(Chairman Boehlert); the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Hall); and the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Smith) for working
with me and the rest of the committee in a bipartisan manner on this
important piece of legislation that makes a strong statement about our
commitment to invest in America's future.
H.R. 4664 places the National Science Foundation on the path to
double its budget in 5 years, which was the goal of H.R. 1472, the NSF
authorization bill that I introduced last April 2001. I introduced H.R.
1472 because I strongly believed that investing in basic research, math
and engineering research is essential to the future economic prosperity
and global competitiveness of our country. Even after September 11,
what we are depending on most now will be the kinds of technology that
the research from the National Science Foundation has brought to the
forefront.
The National Science Foundation plays a leading role in educating our
youth in math and sciences and training the scientists and engineers of
tomorrow, and the agency is working to ensure that tomorrow's high-tech
workers reflect a diversity of America. It is my sincere hope that my
colleagues will recognize the importance of basic research to our
Nation's future and will pass H.R. 4664.
The National Science Foundation expends only 3.8 percent of the
Federal research and development funds, yet this relatively small
amount belies the importance of the agency to our country. The National
Science Foundation provides 23 percent of the basic research funding at
academic institutions. For specific research areas, the National
Science Foundation's role at universities is even larger. It funds 36
percent of research in the physical sciences, 49 percent of research in
the environmental sciences, 50 percent of research in engineering, 72
percent of research in mathematics, and 78 percent of research in
computer science. So, clearly, the National Science Foundation plays a
disproportionately important role in funding some of the most basic
research areas that have implications far beyond their own academic
area.
[[Page H3191]]
{time} 1430
To give an idea of the quality and importance of the NSF-funded
research to our Nation, consider the fact that over 100 Nobel prizes
have been awarded to scientists supported by the National Science
Foundation research in the fields of physics, chemistry, physiology and
medicine and economics. In nearly every field of science and
engineering are examples of outstanding research supported by the
National Science Foundation. This research leads to critical advances
in the understanding of our world and in technology that improves our
lives.
For example, the National Science Foundation support at the National
Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois
developed the first Internet browser that led to the explosive growth
of the World Wide Web. The National Science Foundation-funded research
in atmospheric chemistry identified the ozone depletion over the
Antarctic, the ozone hole, as it has come to be known. NSF-funded
research on mathematics and solid modeling led to the widespread use of
computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing that has
revolutionized industry and enhanced workplace productivity. These are
but a few examples of the scientific breakthroughs that have been
funded by the NSF in recent years, and this and other research
supported by NSF ultimately strengthens our economy. The connection
between research funding and the strength of the economy has been
expounded by such diverse sources as former presidential science
advisor Allen Bromley, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, former
Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, and the Hart-Rudman Commission for
National Security. Yet despite the importance of basic research to the
future economic health and well-being of our country, NSF now must
decline more than $1 billion worth of high quality research proposals
each year. Why? Because NSF's budget is insufficient to meet the
demands of our Nation's vibrant research sector.
Mr. Chairman, while it is true that everyone must learn to live
within their budget, and NSF has, it is a shame that top-notch
proposals go unfunded for lack of resources. It is essential that our
Nation's premier science research agency has the resources it needs to
fund advances that could lead to the next World Wide Web or deciphering
the genome of a critically important crop. Our generation has
benefitted enormously from the investment of our parents and
grandparents made in basic research decades ago, and we owe it to our
children to see that they enjoy the same pace of technological
advancement that we have enjoyed. It is critical that we invest in
basic research today that will lead to better life tomorrow.
These are but a few examples of the scientific breakthroughs that
have been funded by NSF in recent years, and this and other research
supported by the NSF ultimately strengthens our economy. The connection
between research funding and the strength of the economy has been
expounded by such diverse sources as former presidential science
advisor Allen Bromley, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, former
speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, and the Hart-Rudman Commission on
National Security.
Yet despite the importance of basic research to the future economic
health and well-being of our country, NSF now must decline more than 1
billion dollar's worth of high quality research proposals each year.
Why? Because NSF's budget is insufficient to meet the demands of our
Nation's vibrant research sector. Mr. Chairman, while it is true that
everyone must learn to live within their budget, and NSF has, it is a
shame that top-notch proposals go unfunded for lack of resources.
In addition to funding basic research at our Nation's laboratories,
the National Science Foundation makes essential investments in training
the scientists and engineers of tomorrow. NSF research awards and
direct research fellowships help train over 24,000 graduate students
each year, the future scientists and engineers essential to our high-
tech economy. The bill before us today seeks to strengthen NSF's
graduate research fellowships by funding more research grants and
increasing the average grant size and duration.
NSF programs also help to improve science education for all students
and to prepare them for citizenship in a world increasingly dominated
by technology. Today we continue to have manpower shortages in many
high technology fields, and many industries rely on the labor and brain
power of foreign nationals. The ideal way to alleviate the shortages is
by ensuring that our Nation's children of all races and both genders
receive the basic grounding in science and mathematics that will
prepare them to pursue careers as scientists, engineers and
technologists. Now, more than ever, we need to ensure that an adequate
number of Americans choose careers in the sciences and engineering. We
cannot allow inadequate funding to cripple NSF's efforts in this area.
Mr. Chairman, over the past few months, there has been a great deal
of debate about the appropriate level of funding for the National
Science Foundation. Some have proposed essentially flat levels of
funding, while others have proposed a small 8.8% increase for one
fiscal year. These levels are simply not enough for an agency as highly
regarded and as critical to the future well-being of our Nation as the
National Science Foundation. I say that we must double the budget of
NSF and invest in our Nation's future. H.R. 4664 was developed in a
bipartisan fashion and enjoys the strong support of the Science
Committee. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the
Committee on Science for its work in putting together this
reauthorization for the National Science Foundation. This bill shows us
the path we must take to ensure that our Nation continues to lead the
world in technological innovation and in scientific capacity, by
doubling Federal funding for the NSF over the next 5 years, just as we
have done for the National Institutes of Health.
In a widely-circulated letter last year, Dr. Harold Varmus, the
former director of the NIH, made it clear that we do health research no
favors when we underfund basic research in the physical sciences.
Physical science disciplines are often the key not only to providing
the tools used in conducting health research, but in delivering the
benefits of health research to the public.
Just take a walk through any hospital surgical unit or emergency
room, where you will be surrounded by more pieces of medical technology
than you can count, and you will quickly understand this point.
I also want to draw the attention of Members to the bill's
reauthorization of the National Science Foundation's Advanced
Technology Education program. The ATE program is the only NSF program
targeted to community colleges.
Associate-degree-granting colleges educate the vast majority of the
three to five technicians that support each engineer, scientist, and
medical doctor across this Nation.
Meeting the demand for high-tech workers by both our modernizing
manufacturing sector and our new-economy enterprises requires
strengthening undergraduate education in science, mathematics, and
technology at associate-degree-granting colleges, where nearly half of
all undergraduate college students are enrolled. That is the purpose of
the ATE program, which provides grants to 2-year institutions to
develop new curricula and teaching methods and materials in advanced
technology fields.
I have worked on our Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent
Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations to increase ATE funding,
and we have enjoyed some successes. However, current funding is still
under $40 million a year, and cut of $950,000 has been recommended by
the administration for the next fiscal year. A more adequate
authorization would offer considerable help.
Fortunately, the Committee on Science accepted an amendment offered
by my good friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), to
authorize the ATE program at $50 million for fiscal year 2003, with a
$5 million increase for each of the next 2 fiscal years.
In fact, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) and I have
introduced legislation to more broadly expand and strengthen the ATE
program.
In addition to increasing funding for the program, the Science
Undergraduate Community College Education Enhancement Development Act,
the SUCCESS Act, H.R. 4680, would give community colleges more
flexibility to develop innovative core math
[[Page H3192]]
and science curricula, and would provide more opportunities for
community college students to have research experiences at 4-year
institutions.
Our bill would also establish an advisory committee, comprised of
representatives from industry and academia, to evaluate the
effectiveness of the ATE program and to make recommendations on how it
can be improved. Also, it would promote the dissemination of ATE
results to community college systems across the Nation.
While the increased authorization level for the ATE program is
included in the bill before us now, the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Baird) was successful in adding the remaining provisions of H.R. 4680
to the Undergraduate Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology
Improvement Act, which was also recently approved by the Committee on
Science.
I again congratulate the Committee on Science and our colleagues on
both sides of the aisle for the fine work they have done today in
bringing H.R. 4664 to the House floor. I urge all of our colleagues to
support it.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
(Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentlewoman from
California, for yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support this legislation. It is, I
think, very important, and I think the committee, under the leadership
of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), has done an excellent job.
We heard that the National Science Foundation provides only a few
percent of the total Federal research and development budget, but it
provides a large fraction of the support for mathematics, biological
sciences, earth sciences, social sciences, and engineering.
We have all heard about the many things that have come out of NSF
research: the work in thin film technology, in genetics, in magnetic
resonance imaging, CD players, printers, Taxol, and so forth.
It is also important to recognize the return on investment to this
Federal investment. Economists will argue about whether the return on
investment in research and development is 20 percent, 40 percent, or 60
percent. Whatever it is, it is extraordinarily high. This is one of the
best things that we as a Congress can do who have been entrusted with
the worthwhile expenditure of taxpayer money.
As one Member of Congress who himself has conducted NSF-funded
research, and who every year that I have been in Congress has worked to
see the NSF budget increased, I am very pleased to see the NSF on this
faster growth path, because we can talk about funding the National
Institutes of Health and other health-related research here in the
United States, but unless we invest in the research that leads to
improved techniques and instrumentation and the training of scientists,
that investment in health research will not yield the returns that we
should be getting from it.
Just today I have been having some briefings with investigative and
intelligence organizations. They have reminded me just today how much
they are dependent on research that is coming out of the National
Science Foundation for their work in dealing with anthrax and other
pathogens.
Finally, I would say the most important work that the National
Science Foundation is doing is the work in our schools, particularly in
the pre-college setting. The members of the committee are to be
commended for putting together such a good authorization bill.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Honda).
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to
me. I would like to commend the chairman and the ranking member of the
Committee on Science and the chairman and ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Research for their leadership on this issue.
Investment in research and development is one of the single largest
contributing factors to the Nation's past, present, and future economic
growth. The U.S. high technology industry spends more on R&D than on
any other industry, but because corporations feel acute pressure to
focus scarce research dollars on market-driven product development, the
Federal Government must play an integral role in the longer-term basic
research that leads to fundamental innovations.
Federal support for basic research has contributed to the development
of the Internet, personal computers, the silicon chip, lasers, fiber
optics, supercomputers, and magnetic resonance imaging. The first
graphical web browser, high-speed networks, artificial intelligence,
databases, and the graphical user interface all have their roots in
government-sponsored research.
Over the past few years, funding for research in the physical
sciences has declined as a fraction of overall R&D spending. Funding
for the National Institutes of Health now makes up over half of all
non-defense research, and the proposed research at NIH funding this
year is as large as NSF's entire budget.
This funding imbalance threatens long-term research at a time when we
are quickly approaching the physical limits to semiconductor
performance. A new technological revolution is needed if we are going
to continue improving computer performance like we have in the past few
years. It is essential that we invest in basic research to provide the
scientific basis for this technological revolution so that we can
maintain the gains in productivity that lead to economic growth.
A sustained public and private investment in R&D will also foster a
skilled American work force, stimulate new technologies, and maintain
U.S. dominance in vital industries, elements critical to retaining the
United States' global economic leadership in the new millennium.
The 2001 report of the Hart-Rudman Commission on National Security
for the 21st Century determined that ``the scale and nature of the
ongoing revolution in science and technology . . . pose critical
national security challenges to the United States.''
To address the challenge, the commission recommended a doubling of
all Federal funding for science and technology research and development
by 2010. I believe we should strive to achieve this goal, and I
recommend and urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4664.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
(Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Chairman, let me say that it would be nice just to include myself
in the good remarks made by both sides of the aisle on the importance
of basic research.
One area that we have not talked about that I think is so important
in NSF is it keeps young, quality minds at that university staying in
research, so it encourages the talented young people in our university
systems to stay on, to get their Master's degrees and their Doctor's
degree.
Just in terms of sort of proving that point, if we are looking at all
the Nobel Laureates in physics, in chemistry, and in economics, most
every one of those individuals at one time in their career had an NSF
grant. So part of the tremendous success of the program is keeping
these talented young people in that research arena to do what is
necessary to strengthen our economy, to improve our public health, and
certainly to add to our ability to defend ourselves and our national
security.
{time} 1445
America's position as a world leader in science and education is a
key element to our national security. Let me just mention in the report
on national security in the 21st century, the Hart-Rudman Commission
noted that and, I will quote, ``The inadequacies of our systems of
research and education pose a greater threat to U.S. national security
over the next quarter century than any potential conventional war that
we might imagine.''
It is important that we move ahead, that we improve our education
system, that we work more diligently than we ever have before, keeping
more students in the math and sciences as they
[[Page H3193]]
move their careers through high school and into the college arena.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to summarize by saying that I
believe we have put together a strong piece of legislation that will
allow Congress to demonstrate its commitment to continuing the economic
gains and technological advances of recent years through support of
fundamental basic research. The increase in this legislation is a sound
investment and is brought by bipartisan support, was passed through
both the Subcommittee on Research and the full Committee on Science by
a unanimous vote.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support the bill.
I would like to point out that NSF-funded research has also directly
benefited America's effort in response to the events of 9/11--
supporting emergency grants pioneering the use of genomics as a tool in
forensic analysis of microbes after last October's anthrax attacks.
Also, an NSF-funded robotics grant led to the development of software-
guided robots that were used successfully to search the rubble and
locate victims at the World Trade Center Disaster site.
NSF research has also led to faster computer Magnetic Resonance
Imaging the Internet, Doppler radar, discoveries of new planets, new
polymers materials that are used in products ranging from clothing to
automobiles, and most recently, fundamental plant genomics research
that will lead to improved crop varieties that increase yields while
better protecting the environment. These are just a few examples, but
the list goes on and on.
I want to reiterate that NSF has supported these achievements with an
efficiency that is almost unheard of in the Federal Government. NSF has
been recognized for it's strong management--as the only cabinet agency
to receive a ``green light'' rating in the President's budget. Mitch
Daniels, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, has
hailed NSF as ``one of the true centers of excellence in government.''
Let me summarize by saying that I believe we have put together a
strong piece of legislation that will allow Congress to demonstrate its
commitment to continuing the economic gains and technological
advancements of recent years through support of fundamental basic
research. The increase in this legislation is a sound investment and
has broad bipartisan support, was passed through both the Research
Subcommittee and the full Science Committee by voice vote, and I urge
all members to support the bill.
NSF has supported the research of more than half of the United States
Nobel laureates in physics, chemistry, and economics. Since 1989, 80%
of NSF-funded Nobel prize winners were funded by NSF before winning the
prize.
Research supported by the National Science Foundation has led to a
myriad of discoveries, technologies, and products that improve our
daily lives, including: a greater understanding of bacteria, viruses,
and the structure of DNA; medical diagnostic tools, such as Magnetic
Resonance Imaging (MRI); the Internet, web browsers, and fiber optics,
which have revolutionized global communication; automated DNA
sequencing machines; polymer materials used in products ranging from
clothing to automobiles; Doppler radar used for accurate weather
forecasting; artificial skin that can help recovering burn victims;
economic research in game and decision theory which has led to a
greater understanding of economic cycles; and discoveries of new
planets, black holes, and insights into the nature of the universe.
More recently, NSF-funded research has benefited America's effort in
response to the events of 9/11. An NSF-funded grant led to the
development of software-guided robots that were used successfully to
search the rubble and locate victims at the World Trade Center disaster
site. Also, NSF supported emergency grants pioneering the use of
genomics as a tool in forensic analysis of microbes after last
October's anthrax attacks.
These advances have all come from an agency that receives only 4% of
the total annual Federal spending for R&D.
NSF has also been the lead Federal agency in a number of national
science initiatives, such as those in information technology, plant
genomics, and nanotechnology.
The National Science Foundation's innovative education programs work
to ensure that every American student receives a solid foundation in
science and math through support for the training and education of
teachers, the public, and students of all ages and backgrounds, and by
supporting research into new teaching tools, curricula, and
methodologies.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to voice my concern
over this legislation that will double the National Science
Foundation's (NSF) budget in five years. I feel that while we have
taken the effort to double the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and
now NSF, this committee has neglected NASA. I am supportive of our
commitment to NSF and have a history of such support. At this time,
however, given the lack of attention this committee has given NASA, I
cannot support this particular piece of legislation.
NASA's budget has been neglected for over a decade. When one
considers inflation, the NASA budget is not keeping pace. This sends
the wrong message. As a medical doctor and scientist, I very much
appreciate the work that NIH and NSF do, but to keep NASA out in the
cold I feel is the wrong approach. No other agency has such a daring,
exciting and public mission. It is time we treated NASA as a valued
Federal agency instead of letting it wither on the vine.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4664, the
Investing in America's Future Act. Past investment in fundamental
scientific research has fueled growth of our economy, trained our
technological workforce, and provided the research needed for national
and homeland security. It is time to ensure our future prosperity and
security by recognizing the important work performed by the National
Science Foundation (NSF), the only agency devoted to supporting basic
science research in science, math, and engineering across all fields
and science and math education at all levels.
This legislation will double the NSF's budget over the next five
years. Increasing funding for the NSF demonstrates the recognition of
the lasting benefits that basic research provides to our economic and
national security. The increase would also be used to expand core
science programs to fund highly ranked grant proposals, pursue new
initiatives like nanotechnology and biocomplexity, and fully fund K-12
education programs that have been authorized by the House of
Representatives. In addition, the bill provides greater transparency to
the process through which major research and facilities construction
projects are evaluated, prioritized, and selected for funding by
requiring the Director to develop a list of proposed projects, ranking
the relative priority of each for funding. This will allow Congress and
NSF to expand its investments in cutting-edge research initiatives and
to preserve its core research and education programs.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly believe that investing in basic science,
math, and engineering research is essential to the future economic
prosperity and global competitiveness of our country and an important
investment for the future. For these reasons, I support this
legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor of H.R. 4664, I
rise in support of this important bill that will put the National
Science Foundation on a track to double its budget in five years.
I thank Chairman Boehlert and my colleagues in the Science Committee
for their hard work on this bill.
I think we all recognize that investing in basic research is critical
for a strong economy and national security. In the past 50 years, half
of U.S. economic productivity can be attributed to technological
innovation and the science that has supported it. Despite this fact,
over the last two decades Federal investment in R&D has fallen by one-
third as a share of the GDP.
This bill will help put us on the right track. Federal investment in
science underpins our global competitiveness and our prosperity. NSF-
funded research made possible the discovery of the ``ozone hole,''
developed the first Web browser, advanced the field of molecular
genetics, and funded much of the early research leading to the
development of speech activation and recognition technology. Less
directly but no less importantly, NSF is often the major source of
support for education and training of Ph.D. scientists and engineers,
many of whom have gone on to make major private-sector contributions in
the development of cell phones, fiber optics, and computer assisted
design.
NSF provides fully 23% of total Federal support for university
research--or nearly half excluding NIH sponsored biomedical research.
From sources such as former science advisor to the first President
Bush, Allen Bromley, and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, to
the Hart-Rudman Commission on National Security, we hear that Federal
funding for research is a necessary precondition for continued economic
success and security in our high technology economy.
I think former Speaker Newt Gingrich said in best in a 1999
Washington Post op-ed. He wrote that ``Out of our sense of patriotism
and our own enlightened self-interest, we should . . . insist that
Federal investment in scientific research be doubled over the next five
years. . . . Anything less will weaken the future for all of us.''
Mr. Chairman, I agree, and I urge support of this important bill.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the
Members of the Science Committee, subcommittee, sponsor, and all the
Members who worked so hard on
[[Page H3194]]
H.R. 4664, the Investing in America's Future Act of 2002.
I would like to take this opportunity today to voice my strong
support for this legislation.
This legislation authorizes additional funding to a very important
organization, the National Science Foundation.
The bills directs NASA to jointly establish an Astronomy and
Astrophysics Advisory Committee to assess and provide recommendations
regarding the coordination of astronomy and astrophysics programs at
each agency.
This is one of the several provisions in this bill that would
strengthen NASA. NASA plays a huge role in the 18th Congressional
District, as many of my constituents are employed there.
The continued development of this nation's science program ought to
be one of this nation's top priorities. By establishing a joint
committee on astronomy to assess coordination of astronomy programs
between the agencies and to assess the activities of the agencies
relative to recommendations of the surveys conducted by the National
Academy of Sciences, this bill would further make the science program
accountable to Congress.
As a member of the Science Committee, I can attest to the fact that
we have held numerous hearings investigating and asking relevant
questions on how to best fund the NSF and how to best make it
accessible and accountable to Congress.
By focusing directly on the research initiatives such as information
technology, nanoscale science and engineering, and mathematical
sciences, as well as the Major Research Instrumentation program, H.R.
4664 further enhances the research and education departments of the
National Science Foundation.
Let me also voice my strong support for the funding of minority
institutions in science education. This provision will open the door
for many future scientists to carry the torch for many years to come.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
legislation, which will reauthorize the National Science Foundation for
the next three years. This bill is of the highest priority to me and to
many colleges and universities in my district. I've already heard from
students, professors and administrators from the University of
Wisconsin who have told me that a lack of serious commitment to science
funding and research would not only stunt the growth and education of
many qualified students, but would also seriously cripple some of their
most critical research efforts. This is why I'm delighted with the
commitment in this legislation to increase NSF funding by 15 percent
each year for the next three years. This commitment is similar to the
highly successfully funding commitment that doubled the National
Institutes of Health budget over the past five years.
The NSF funds 25% of the basic research conducted in universities
across the nation, and a considerably higher percentage in selected
fields. The NSF funds 425 grants for well over $60 million at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison alone, helping to make UW-Madison one
of the top research universities in the country. NSF grants and
fellowships also help train over 24,000 graduate students each year,
many of whom go on to make major contributions in academia and
industry. University research funded by the NSF trains new generations
of scientists and engineers, but without the type of funding increase
outlined in this legislation, universities will be forced to limit the
number of graduate students that they are able to admit to these
programs.
One example of a thriving NSF project in my district is the IceCube
Neutrino telescope, which is headed by UW-Madison. When completed, this
groundbreaking new telescope will look deep into our universe in ways
that traditional telescopes cannot. It is truly on the cutting edge of
astronomical research and will allow us to view the universe in an
entirely new and innovative manner. Furthermore, IceCube has been
subjected to exhaustive peer review and is one of many shining examples
of the sound science and basic research that the NSF successfully
fosters.
It is my sincere hope that funding levels outlined in this
legislation are met when it comes time to fund the NSF. Science funding
for research should be and often is a result of bipartisanship. I am
pleased that this is the case today. In that spirit, I urge a yes vote
on this legislation and urge appropriators to fully fund the NSF at
these new levels.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong
support of a bill designed to improve the security, economy, and
standard of living of all Americans, the Investing in America's Future
Act, H.R. 4664. The bill accomplishes this by putting the nation's
premier science agency, the National Science Foundation, on track to
double its budget in five years.
Mr. Chairman, it is no secret that America has long recognized that
its long-term strength and security, and its ability to recover and
sustain high levels of economic growth, depends on maintaining its edge
in scientific achievement and technological innovation. Biomedical
advances have permitted us to live longer, healthier, and more
productively. Advances in agriculture technology have permitted us to
be able to feed more people at a cheaper cost. The information
revolution can be seen today in the advanced instruments schools are
using to instruct our children and in the vast information resources
that are opened up as a result of the linkages created by a networked
global society. Our children today can grow up to know, see, and read
more, be more diverse, and have more options in their lives for
learning and growing. Other emerging technologies--such as
nanotechnology--have untold potential to make our lives more existing,
secure, prosperous, and challenging.
Many companies also recognize this and they, therefore, focus their
industrial, economic, and security policies on the nurturing and
diffusion of technological advancement through all levels of society in
a deliberate fashion. Countries that follow this path of nurturing
innovation focus a lot of their efforts into recruiting and training
the very best engineers and scientists, ensuring that a pipeline which
pumps talented and imaginative minds and skills is connected to the
needs of the country's socio-economic and security enterprise.
It always pays to be mindful of the fact--especially in the wake of
the September 11 events--that there is a strong and tight linkage
between our national security and the level of science and technology
proficiency in America. Our strength and leadership in the world is
based on the might of our defense, strength of our economy, and the
quality of our education system. Without any one of these three
components the global preeminence of the nation suffers. These three
components are, in turn, maintained on a foundation of strong
leadership in the business of scientific and technological innovation,
which keeps the engines of progress moving forward.
To remain a strong nation, we must ensure that the single most
important element that keeps us dynamic, innovative, prosperous, and
secure--and therefore strong--is there for us: our science and
technology enterprise. In short, we need to support the NSF and we need
to support this bill.
I am honored to be a sponsor of this important legislation in the
United States House of Representatives and I urge my colleagues to
support it.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4664, the
``Investing in America's Future Act.'' This bill reauthorizes the
National Science Foundation (NSF) for three years, increasing its
funding by 15% each year. Today we are taking an important step forward
by enhancing our commitment to our nation's science enterprise and
setting a long-term goal of doubling the budget of NSF.
The National Science Foundation is the only Federal agency devoted to
supporting basic research in science, math, and engineering across all
fields and science and math education at all levels. In fact, NSF funds
25% of the basic research conducted in U.S. universities, and a
considerably higher percentage in selected fields. NSF grants and
fellowships help train over 24,000 graduate students each year, many of
whom go on to make major contributions in academia and industry.
My district is home to one of our nation's premier scientific
research institutions, the California Institute of Technology
(Caltech), and one of the most prominent beneficiaries of NSF grant
funding. In fiscal year 2001, Caltech received 31% of its total federal
agency research support from NSF, totaling near $44 million. And
Caltech is not alone. In fiscal year 1999, NSF provided 16% of the
total federal research and development funds provided to ALL California
universities, an impressive sum of $367 million.
By increasing NSF funding, we will enable this fine institution to
expand core science programs, fund highly ranked grant proposals that
would otherwise go unfunded, and pursue new initiatives such as
nanotechnology and biocomplexity. We must continue to support the
backbone of our new economy--fundamental scientific research and
education--by supporting the National Science Foundation and its many
groundbreaking endeavors.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4664 and to remain steadfast in
our commitment to our nation's science enterprise.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). All time for general debate
has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in the bill shall be considered by sections as an
original bill for the purpose of amendment and each section is
considered read.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has
printed
[[Page H3195]]
in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those amendments
will be considered read.
The Clerk will designate section 1.
The text of section 1 is as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Investing in America's
Future Act of 2002''.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to section 1?
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder
of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute be printed in
the Record and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
The text of the remainder of the committee amendment in the nature of
a substitute is as follows:
SEC. 2 DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Board.--The term ``Board'' means the National Science
Board established under section 2 of the National Science
Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1861).
(2) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of
the National Science Foundation.
(3) Foundation.--The term ``Foundation'' means the National
Science Foundation.
(4) Institution of higher education.--The term
``institution of higher education'' has the meaning given
that term in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)).
(5) National research facility.--The term ``national
research facility'' means a research facility funded by the
Foundation which is available, subject to appropriate
policies allocating access, for use by all scientists and
engineers affiliated with research institutions located in
the United States.
(6) United states.--The term ``United States'' means the
several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other
territory or possession of the United States.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Fiscal Year 2003.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the National Science Foundation $5,515,260,000 for fiscal
year 2003.
(2) Specific allocations.--Of the amount authorized under
paragraph (1)--
(A) $4,138,440,000 shall be made available to carry out
Research and Related Activities, of which--
(i) $704,000,000 shall be for networking and information
technology research;
(ii) $238,450,000 shall be for the Nanoscale Science and
Engineering Priority Area;
(iii) $60,090,000 shall be for the Mathematical Sciences
Priority Area; and
(iv) $75,900,000 shall be for Major Research
Instrumentation;
(B) $1,006,250,000 shall be made available for Education
and Human Resources, of which--
(i) $50,000,000 shall be for the Advanced Technological
Education Program established under section 3 of the
Scientific and Advanced-Technology Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C.
1862i); and
(ii) $30,000,000 shall be for the Minority Serving
Institutions Undergraduate Program;
(C) $152,350,000 shall be made available for Major Research
Equipment and Facilities Construction;
(D) $210,160,000 shall be made available for Salaries and
Expenses; and
(E) $8,060,000 shall be made available for the Office of
Inspector General.
(b) Fiscal Year 2004.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the National Science Foundation $6,342,550,000 for fiscal
year 2004.
(2) Specific allocations.--Of the amount authorized under
paragraph (1)--
(A) $4,735,600,000 shall be made available to carry out
Research and Related Activities, of which--
(i) $774,000,000 shall be for networking and information
technology research;
(ii) $286,140,000 shall be for the Nanoscale Science and
Engineering Priority Area;
(iii) $90,090,000 shall be for the Mathematical Sciences
Priority Area; and
(iv) $85,000,000 shall be for Major Research
Instrumentation;
(B) $1,157,190,000 shall be made available for Education
and Human Resources, of which $55,000,000 shall be for the
Advanced Technological Education Program established under
section 3 of the Scientific and Advanced-Technology Act of
1992 (42 U.S.C. 1862i);
(C) $225,000,000 shall be made available for Major Research
Equipment and Facilities Construction;
(D) $216,460,000 shall be made available for Salaries and
Expenses; and
(E) $8,300,000 shall be made available for the Office of
Inspector General.
(c) Fiscal Year 2005.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the National Science Foundation $7,293,930,000 for fiscal
year 2005.
(2) Specific allocations.--Of the amount authorized under
paragraph (1)--
(A) $5,445,940,000 shall be made available to carry out
Research and Related Activities;
(B) $1,330,770,000 shall be made available for Education
and Human Resources;
(C) $285,710,000 shall be made available for Major Research
Equipment and Facilities Construction;
(D) $222,960,000 shall be made available for Salaries and
Expenses; and
(E) $8,550,000 shall be made available for the Office of
Inspector General.
SEC. 4. OBLIGATION OF MAJOR RESEARCH EQUIPMENT FUNDS.
(a) Fiscal Year 2003.--None of the funds authorized under
section 3(a)(2)(C) may be obligated until 30 days after the
first report required under section 7(a)(2) is transmitted to
the Congress.
(b) Fiscal Year 2004.--None of the funds authorized under
section 3(b)(2)(C) may be obligated until 30 days after the
report required by June 15, 2003, under section 7(a)(2) is
transmitted to the Congress.
(c) Fiscal Year 2005.--None of the funds authorized under
section 3(c)(2)(C) may be obligated until 30 days after the
report required by June 15, 2004, under section 7(a)(2) is
transmitted to the Congress.
SEC. 5. ANNUAL PLAN FOR ALLOCATION OF FUNDING.
Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of
legislation providing for the annual appropriation of funds
for the Foundation, the Director shall submit to the
Committee on Science of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate, and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions of the Senate, a plan for the allocation of funds
authorized by this Act for the corresponding fiscal year. The
portion of the plan pertaining to Research and Related
Activities shall include a description of how the allocation
of funding--
(1) will affect the average size and duration of research
grants supported by the Foundation by field of science,
mathematics, and engineering;
(2) will affect trends in research support for major fields
and subfields of science, mathematics, and engineering,
including for emerging multidisciplinary research areas; and
(3) is designed to achieve an appropriate balance among
major fields and subfields of science, mathematics, and
engineering.
SEC. 6. PROPORTIONAL REDUCTION.
(a) Overall Amounts.--If the amount appropriated pursuant
to section 3(a)(1), (b)(1), or (c)(1) is less than the amount
authorized under that paragraph, the amount available under
each subparagraph of paragraph (2) of that subsection shall
be reduced by the same proportion.
(b) Research and Related Activities Amounts.--If the amount
appropriated pursuant to section 3(a)(2)(A) or (b)(2)(A) is
less than the amount authorized under that subparagraph, the
amount available under each clause of that subparagraph shall
be reduced by the same proportion.
SEC. 7. NATIONAL RESEARCH FACILITIES.
(a) Prioritization of Proposed Major Research Equipment and
Facilities Construction.--
(1) Development of priorities.--
(A) List.--The Director shall develop a list indicating by
number the relative priority for funding under the Major
Research Equipment and Facilities Construction account that
the Director assigns to each project the Board has approved
for inclusion in a future budget request. The Director shall
submit the list to the Board for approval.
(B) Updates.--The Director shall update the list prepared
under paragraph (1) each time the Board approves a new
project that would receive funding under the Major Research
Equipment and Facilities Construction account and as
necessary to prepare reports under paragraph (2). The
Director shall submit any updated list to the Board for
approval.
(2) Annual report.--Not later than 90 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, and not later than each June
15th thereafter, the Director shall transmit to the Congress
a report containing--
(A) the most recent Board-approved priority list developed
under paragraph (1);
(B) a description of the criteria used to develop such
list; and
(C) a description of the major factors for each project
that determined its ranking on the list, based on the
application of the criteria described pursuant to
subparagraph (B).
(3) Criteria.--The criteria described pursuant to paragraph
(2)(B) shall include, at a minimum--
(A) scientific merit;
(B) broad societal need and probable impact;
(C) consideration of the results of formal prioritization
efforts by the scientific community;
(D) readiness of plans for construction and operation;
(E) international and interagency commitments; and
(F) the order in which projects were approved by the Board
for inclusion in a future budget request.
(b) Facilities Plan.--
(1) In general.--Section 201(a)(1) of the National Science
Foundation Authorization Act of 1998 (42 U.S.C. 1862l(a)(1))
is amended to read as follows:
``(1) In general.--The Director shall prepare, and include
as part of the Foundation's annual budget request to
Congress, a plan for the proposed construction of, and repair
and upgrades to, national research facilities, including full
life-cycle cost information.''.
(2) Contents of plan.--Section 201(a)(2) of the National
Science Foundation Authorization Act of 1998 (42 U.S.C.
1862l(a)(2)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``, including costs
for instrumentation development'' after ``described in
paragraph (1)'';
(B) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (B);
[[Page H3196]]
(C) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (C)
and inserting a semicolon; and
(D) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
``(D) for each project funded under the Major Research
Equipment and Facilities Construction account--
``(i) estimates of the total project cost (from planning to
commissioning); and
``(ii) the source of funds, including Federal funding
identified by appropriations category and non-Federal
funding;
``(E) estimates of the full life-cycle cost of each
national research facility;
``(F) information on any plans to retire national research
facilities; and
``(G) estimates of funding levels for grants supporting
research that will make use of each national research
facility.''.
(3) Definition.--Section 2 of the National Science
Foundation Authorization Act of 1998 (42 U.S.C. 1862k note)
is amended--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (5) as
paragraphs (4) through (6), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new
paragraph:
``(3) Full life-cycle cost.--The term `full life-cycle
cost' means all costs of development, procurement,
construction, operations and support, and shut down costs,
without regard to funding source and without regard to what
entity manages the project.''.
(c) Project Management.--No national research facility
project funded under the Major Research Equipment and
Facilities Construction account shall be managed by an
individual whose appointment to the Foundation is temporary.
SEC. 8. MAJOR RESEARCH INSTRUMENTATION.
The Foundation shall conduct a review and assessment of the
Major Research Instrumentation Program and provide a report
to Congress on its findings and recommendations within 1 year
after the date of the enactment of this Act. The report shall
include--
(1) estimates of the needs, by major field of science and
engineering, of institutions of higher education for the
types of research instrumentation that are eligible for
funding under the guidelines of the Major Research
Instrumentation Program;
(2) the distribution of awards and funding levels by year
and by major field of science and engineering for the Major
Research Instrumentation Program, since the inception of the
Program; and
(3) an analysis of the impact of the Major Research
Instrumentation Program on the research instrumentation needs
that were documented in the Foundation's 1994 survey of
academic research instrumentation needs.
SEC. 9. ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
(a) Establishment.--The Foundation and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration shall jointly establish
an Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee (in this
section referred to as the ``Advisory Committee'').
(b) Duties.--The Advisory Committee shall--
(1) assess, and make recommendations regarding, the
coordination of astronomy and astrophysics programs of the
Foundation and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration;
(2) assess, and make recommendations regarding, the status
of the activities of the Foundation and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration as they relate to the
recommendations contained in the National Research Council's
2001 report entitled ``Astronomy and Astrophysics in the New
Millennium'', and the recommendations contained in subsequent
National Research Council reports of a similar nature; and
(3) not later than March 15 of each year, transmit a report
to the Director, the Administrator of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Congress on the
Advisory Committee's findings and recommendations under
paragraphs (1) and (2).
(c) Membership.--The Advisory Committee shall consist of 13
members, none of whom shall be a Federal employee,
including--
(1) 5 members selected by the Foundation;
(2) 5 members selected by the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration; and
(3) 3 members selected by the members selected under
paragraphs (1) and (2).
(d) Selection Process.--Initial selections under subsection
(c)(1) and (2) shall be made within 3 months after the date
of the enactment of this Act. Initial selections under
subsection (c)(3) shall be made within 5 months after the
date of the enactment of this Act. Vacancies shall be filled
in the same manner as provided in subsection (c).
(e) Chairperson.--The Advisory Committee shall select a
chairperson from among its members.
(f) Coordination.--The Advisory Committee shall coordinate
with the advisory bodies of other Federal agencies, such as
the Department of Energy, which may engage in related
research activities.
(g) Compensation.--The members of the Advisory Committee
shall serve without compensation, but shall receive travel
expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in
accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5, United
States Code.
(h) Meetings.--The Advisory Committee shall convene, in
person or by electronic means, at least 4 times a year.
(i) Quorum.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a
majority of the members serving on the Advisory Committee
shall constitute a quorum for purposes of conducting the
business of the Advisory Committee.
(2) Exception.--The selection of a member under subsection
(c)(3) shall require a vote of \3/4\ of the members appointed
under subsection (c)(1) and (2).
(j) Duration.--Section 14 of the Federal Advisory Committee
Act shall not apply to the Advisory Committee.
SEC. 10. BOARD MEETINGS.
(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to ensure that
the Board complies with the requirements of section 552b of
title 5, United States Code, that all meetings, with the
exception of specific narrow statutory exemptions, be open to
the public.
(b) Compliance Audit.--The Inspector General of the
National Science Foundation shall conduct an annual audit of
the compliance by the Board with the requirements described
in subsection (a). The audit shall examine the extent to
which the proposed and actual content of closed meetings is
consistent with those requirements.
(c) Report.--Not later than February 15 of each year, the
Inspector General of the National Science Foundation shall
transmit to the Congress the audit required under subsection
(b) along with recommendations for corrective actions that
need to be taken to achieve fuller compliance with the
requirements described in subsection (a), and recommendations
on how to ensure public access to the Board's deliberations.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Rivers
Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Rivers:
At the end of the bill, insert the following new section:
SEC. 11. SCHOLARSHIP ELIGIBILITY.
The Director shall not exclude part-time students from
eligibility for scholarships under the Computer Science,
Engineering, and Mathematics Scholarship (CSEMS) program.
Ms. RIVERS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment that will
offer relief in some very complicated lives. The NSF currently
administers the Computer Science, Engineering and Mathematics
Scholarships program, which was established by the American
Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998.
This program assists students training to enter the high-tech
workforce in computer science, computer technology, engineering,
engineering technology or mathematics. Unfortunately, NSF requires that
students be enrolled full time as students, precluding working
students, especially older students who have full time jobs and
families, from qualifying for these scholarships. As someone who
attended college and law school while juggling work and family
obligations, I know firsthand how much good a change like this would do
for folks who are working so hard.
The data clearly shows that traditional full-time students are no
longer the overwhelming majority of those attending undergraduate
institutions. The U.S. Department of Education's National Center for
Education Statistics found in 1999, the most recent data available,
that of the 15 million students here in the United States, nearly 6
million, or 41 percent, were attending on a part-time basis. According
to the current population survey conducted by the Census Bureau, the
greatest percentage rise in college attendance was by women 30 and
over, 2.3 million new students. Approximately 23 percent of all male
college and graduate students were age 30 or older.
The National Center for Education Statistics has estimated that in
2000, students 25 or older outnumbered those younger than 25. And
according to the American Association of Community Colleges, community
colleges in this country enroll over 10 million students, that is 44
percent of all United States undergrads, and 63 percent of those
attending community college are part-time students.
The average age of a student at a community college is now 29 years
old. Furthermore, more than 80 percent of community college students
balance studies with full-time or part-time work.
My amendment simply states that NSF's CSEMS program would be open to
students enrolled in appropriate programs less than full time. The
expansion of the CSEMS program will open the doors of opportunity to
those who want to acquire or finish degrees in the very fields we need
the most workers,
[[Page H3197]]
high technology. Add flexibility to the program and allow university
administrators the discretion to help those who need the help most,
regardless of whether they are an 8-, 10-, 12-, or 16-credit student
per quarter. It would also enable NSF to administer all of the
scholarship funds it currently has available under this program.
I understand that much of this money sits unused due to lack of
advertising, which is compounded due to the exclusion of part-time
students. This amendment would fix the problem.
In my home State of Michigan, several schools have received CSEMS
program grants, including the University of Michigan that I represent,
Grand Valley State University, Western State University, Central
Michigan University, Kettering University, Lake Superior State
University, and the University of Detroit. All of these institutions
enroll part-time students, but none of those students are eligible for
this program.
We should extend the same assistance to them as their full-time
colleagues receive. Having access to the CSEMS scholarship can make a
significant difference when it comes to making a choice about pursuing
a degree or not. The availability of Federal help in financing my
education allowed me to go from being a teen mom working in low-wage
jobs to being a Member of this august body. Education made the
difference.
Let us open the door to success just a little bit wider so more
Americans can walk through it.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. RIVERS. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman is correct. More
and more of our students are adult and are part-time. It is a good
amendment, and we accept the amendment.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support
of my colleague from Michigan's amendment. This amendment seeks to
expand educational opportunities for working Americans in the sciences,
mathematics, and engineering.
NSF's Computer Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Scholarship
(CSEMS) Program was established to support financially needy post-
secondary students pursuing careers in the high-tech sector. The acute
shortage of trained scientists and engineers in our country is well
documented, and critical sectors of our economy find it necessary to
import high-tech labor from other countries under the H-1 B visa
program.
NSF is doing a great deal to address the shortage of home-grown
scientists and engineers, but currently, the CSEMS program is only
eligible to full-time students. The expansion of the eligibility of the
CSEMS program to include part-time students will have two important
results. The first is that it addresses our nation's need for more
scientists and engineers in key sectors of our economy. The second is
that it provides talented, motivated, and economically needy students
with the resources they need to improve their quality of life and
fulfill their dreams.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Rivers).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Woolsey
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Woolsey:
At the end of section 3, add the following new subsection:
(d) Biosafety Research.--Of the amount authorized under
subsection (a)(2)(A), $15,000,000, and of the amount
authorized under subsection (b)(2)(A), $20,000,000, shall be
available for support of fundamental research in areas
related to assessing biosafety. For purposes of this
subsection, the term ``biosafety'' means safety with respect
to the effects of biological research on organisms and the
environment.
Ms. WOOLSEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would create a research
program within the National Science Foundation to address a significant
gap of knowledge on biosafety, a gap of knowledge that must be filled.
The amendment establishes the Biosafety Research Program, so we can
understand in scientific terms the effects of altering biological
systems. It funds the basic science needed to understand the effects of
introducing new plant and animal varieties through both traditional
breeding techniques and through new methods of biotechnology in our
agriculture, horticulture and aquaculture systems.
For thousands of years we have experimented with plants, animals,
microbes, and ecological systems in an effort to survive and prosper
through the development of food and fiber sources, medicines and other
materials essential to our well-being.
Essentially, we have been moving our biological system around,
sometimes intentionally, sometimes not intentionally.
Here I use the term ``biological systems'' in the broadest sense. A
biological system could be a set of genes, a whole organism, an
ecosystem, or a group of ecosystems that co-exist in the landscape. It
is no secret, Mr. Chairman, that a contentious debate has surrounded
the introduction of biotechnology products. The debate has been
characterized more by statements of hope by the advocates and fear from
opponents than by science-based information. It is time we replace the
rhetoric, the rhetoric on both sides, with a firm understanding of how
these varieties are likely to operate in the real world.
With the adoption of my amendment, the Biosafety Research Program
will provide an identifiable pool of research funds for scientists to
ask the basic research questions that could prevent unintended
scenarios. I want my colleagues to know that this program will not fund
risk assessment. It will not fund monitoring or the development or
evaluation of risk-management strategies. Those activities in the area
of applied research are not within the NSF mission. They are and should
be supported by programs at USDA, EPA, and FDA, the entities charged
with reviewing and regulating products being introduced into the
market.
The program my amendment creates in NSF is not a substitute for
increased funding in these other agencies; however, I do believe that
the applied research programs of these agencies need to be increased
also to address the questions the public is asking about these new
products.
Before I close, Mr. Chairman, I want to call attention to several
recent reports from the National Academy of Sciences on invasive
species and agriculture biotechnology that have called for more
research in this areas, including one released earlier this year. My
amendment closely follows the recommendations contained in these
academy reports. I also have a series of excerpts from these recent
reports that I will insert into the Record at this time.
Quotations From NAS Reports
``The committee realizes that there remain some
uncertainties regarding the use of pest-protected plants,
including transgenic pest-protected plants. These
uncertainties can lead to ambiguities in regulation and often
force agencies to base their decisions on minimal data sets.
Additional research should continue to refine and improve
risk assessment methods and procedures and continue to
develop additional data on both conventional and transgenic
pest-protected plant products.'' (p. 139, NAS 2000)
``Research to increase our understanding of the population
biology, genetics, and community ecology of the target pests
should be conducted, so that more ecologically and
evolutionary sustainable approaches to pest management with
pest-protected plants can be developed. Knowledge of pests'
roles in the larger biological community (for example, their
role as food sources for non-target organisms or their roles
as predators of other agriculturally relevant pests) will
allow us to anticipate better the indirect effects of
declines in the pests due to both conventional and transgenic
pest-protected plants. Knowledge of the pest population
biology will enable prediction of the types of pest-
protection mechanisms that would most efficiently reduce a
target organism's pest status and would help us to design
more accurate resistance management plans.
Research to assess gene flow and its potential consequences
should be conducted . . . more ecological and agricultural
research is needed on the following: weed distribution and
abundance (past and present), key factors that regulate weed
population dynamics in managed and unmanaged areas, the
likely impact of specific, novel resistance traits on weed
abundance in managed and unmanaged areas, and rates at which
resistance genes from the crop would be likely to spread
among weed populations.'' (p. 140-141 NAS 2000)
Recommendations
``In cases when crucial scientific data are lacking about
the potential impacts of gene
[[Page H3198]]
flow on wild or weedy relatives, the committee recommends
delaying approval of deregulation pending sufficient data,
establishing a scientifically rigorous monitoring program in
key areas to check for undesirable effects of resistance
transgenes after the transgenic pest-protected plant is
commercialized, or restricting the initial areas where the
plants can be grown.'' (p. 141-142 NAS 2000)
``APHIS jurisdiction has been restricted to the U.S.
borders. However, in an era of globalization, environmental
effects of transgenic crops on the ecosystems of developing
countries will be an important component of risk analysis. As
exemplified by the effects of the Green Revolution varieties
of wheat and rice, novel crop genes often have indirect
effects on the environment. These indirect effects can
occur because the new crop traits enable changes in other
agricultural practices and technologies that impact the
environment. They also can indirectly affect vertical
integration of agriculture and equality of access to food.
Society cannot ignore the fact that people who lack food
security often cause major effects on both agricultural
and nonagricultural environments, so in a broad context
the positive or negative effects of transgenes on human
well-being can be seen as an environmental effect.
Environmental concerns raised by some of the first
transgenic crops (e.g. gene flow, disruption of the genome,
non-target effects) could be ameliorated by expanding our
knowledge base in specific areas of molecular biology,
ecology, and socioeconomic. Furthermore, such an expanded
knowledge base could lead to the production of transgenic
plants that would improve the environment. To increase
knowledge in relevant areas the committee recommends
substantial increases in public-sector investment in the
following research areas: (1) improvement in
precommercialization testing methods; (2) improvement in
transgenic methods that will minimize risks; (3) research to
identify transgenic plants traits that would provide
environmental benefits; (4) research to develop transgenic
plants with such traits; (5) research to improve the
environmental risk characterization processes; and (6)
research on the social, economic, and value-based issues
affecting environmental impacts of transgenic crops.'' (p. 16
NAS 2002)
``The committee cannot presently judge whether extensive
commercialization of transgenic--and other crops bearing
novel traits--will significantly perturb agro-
ecosystems or neighboring ecosystems because of major gaps in
our knowledge of these systems.'' (p. 23 NAS 2002)
``The committee finds, . . . that specific types of
transgenic and conventional crops can pose unique
environmental hazards. Also, the committee finds that there
are good arguments for regulating all transgenic crops. To be
effective such a regulatory system must have an efficient and
accurate method for rapidly evaluating all transgenic plants
to separate those that require additional regulatory
oversight from those that do not.'' (p. 52 NAS 2002)
``Perhaps more than anything else, the
experience with commercialization of transgenic crops has
revealed gaps in the knowledge base for understanding and
measuring the environmental risks of crop production,
irrespective of whether recombinant DNA technologies have
been applied.'' p. 254 NAS 2002
``Formal research support in the United States for the
study of environmental impacts of transgenic plants has been
sparse.'' p. 255 NAS 2002
In reference to USDA's Biotechnology Risk Assessment
Research Grants program:
``. . . The program has allocated no more than a few
million dollars for research each year. Recently, the USDA's
Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAFS)
program has included a competition for funding research,
education, and extension on the management of environmental
risks of agricultural biotechnology. Both funding programs
have substantial limitations--BRARGP because its focus is
only on assessment and because the total amount of funding is
so low; IFAFS because the focus is only for risk management
and the funding program itself is anticipated to have a short
life. Neither program funds monitoring or research related to
monitoring.
Reserch on the environmental impacts of transgenic plants
can be accomplished through other funding sources if the
research questions asked have general significance. For
example, issues directly associated with the impacts of
transgenic plants may often be associated with critical, but
largely unanswered, questions in other fields. For example,
whether or not the introgression of pest resistance
transgenes into wild populations will result in the evolution
of weediness or invasiveness is directly associated with
important questions in population biology regarding the
genetic and ecological causes and correlates of invasiveness
(Traynor and Westwood 1999).'' (p. 255 NAS 2002)
``Recommendation 7.3: Significant public-sector investment
is called for in the following research areas: improvement in
risk analysis methodologies and protocols; improvement in
transgenic methods that will reduce risks and improve
benefits to the environment; research to develop and improve
monitoring for effects in the environment; and research on
the social, economic, and value-based issues affecting
environmental impacts of transgenic crops.'' (p. 259 NAS
2002)
National Research Council. 2002. ``Environmental Effects of
Transgenic Plants: The Scope and Adequacy of Regulation''
National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
National Research Council 2000. ``Genetically Modified
Pest-Protected Plants: Science and Regulation. Washington, DC
National Academy Press.
Mr. Chairman, we all live in a world in which we move things around
with increasing frequency and speed. So we must make at least a modest
investment in understanding how those movements are likely to affect
our world. That is why I am asking my chairman and my colleagues to
support this amendment, because it is the right thing to do.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, we must reluctantly rise in opposition to the amendment
from my very good friend from California. I certainly agree with the
gentlewoman that the National Science Foundation should conduct basic
research that will enable us to understand better the impacts of
biotechnology and other biological research on organisms and on the
environment. In fact, NSF already conducts such research. Indeed, this
House passed a bill just a few weeks ago that charged NSF, again, with
conducting such research. That bill introduced by myself and the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), had been approved
by the Committee on Science. So I wholeheartedly endorse the idea that
NSF should fund this kind of research and they will.
My problems with the amendment are narrower, but still significant.
First the numbers in the amendment are entirely arbitrary. They may be
too large; they may be too small. We have no idea. We have never looked
into it. In an area this important, I do not think we should be pulling
numbers out of thin air.
Second, NSF funds a lot of different scientific disciplines and
subdisciplines. We chose not to pick out many of these specific areas
in this bill for congressionally or politically targeted spending
levels because once we go down that road, there is no end to it. We
want to give the foundation, the scientific community the maximum
flexibility that has served us so well.
So generally we have limited ourselves to initiatives proposed by the
President in areas on which the House has previously acted. The kind of
research that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) is
highlighting is important, but not necessarily more important than
areas of research we are not citing by name in this bill. We need to
limit the number of areas of science that we single out for set-asides
in this bill.
Let me say in conclusion, and maybe thirdly, I have a process problem
with this amendment.
{time} 1500
We have worked on this bill in a bipartisan manner for almost 2
years. The bill passed unanimously in committee because of lengthy
bipartisan discussions. I am not eager to add new issues on the House
floor. We are poised now to pass a bill that can move swiftly through
both the House and the other body, and I think many of us do not want
to add anything that has even the potential to slow our progress.
So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. It is unnecessary
and could slow passage of an important measure, and I will work with
the gentlewoman to ensure that the area of science she is seeking to
protect continues to receive its due from the National Science
Foundation.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, two things. First, this would have been
part of the debate in the committee had I not been asked not to bring
it up in committee but to bring it as an amendment to the floor, and I
was asked by the majority party to do that. So please be clear, this is
not something I did not want to bring to the committee.
Second of all, when my colleague talks about the funding being
arbitrary, our decision on this funding came from the same place that
our whole committee's decision to double the funding for NSF came from.
We do not know how much money we need. We know we need more, and I know
with my amendment we need something. So I want to get started and the
[[Page H3199]]
public wants to get started so that we can scientifically decide what
is good and what is not good.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, to make it
clear, it is somewhat of a different amendment than the gentlewoman
submitted in the Committee on Science, but even more and above that, it
seems to me like we should agree that if we can leave NSF and the
scientific community and the peer review process to do and decide on
these initiatives and how much is reasonable, the legislation that we
passed recently by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice
Johnson) and myself does not say we are going in one area or the other.
It says do more research. Let us leave that up to the scientific
community in deciding how much money should be spent in any particular
area of this biological research.
Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I rise in support of this particular amendment, but I would like to
ask a specific question relative to an area of research that might be
related to this program, and so I offer to the sponsor this question.
Is it the gentlewoman from California's (Ms. Woolsey) anticipation that
this particular biosafety research program would provide research that
would better understand why plants and animals become invasive pests
when they are introduced in new habitats?
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. RIVERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, that is exactly my intention.
Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her response.
I note that the National Academy of Sciences recently released a
report called Predicting Invasions of Nonindigenous Plants and Plant
Pests. In that document they state, ``In spite of a long history of
interest in biological invasion, scientific inquiry in invasion is
still nascent. Progress in understanding and predicting invasions will
depend on how well the insights of investigators with diverse training
can be coalesced and directed to decipher the myriad combinations of
immigrant species, new ranges, and novel circumstances that can produce
a biological invasion. The last 10 years has seen the emergence of a
broad consensus that the prediction of biological invasion is a field
presenting national need. It will take some time, however, to generate
the predictive principles on which policy-makers, regulators, the
scientific community, and the public can have confidence.''
They go on to say that, ``The challenge of constructing a scientific
basis for predicting the risk associated with nonindigenous species
needs to be met by a significant national effort, including other
agencies within the USDA, other branches of the Federal Government
responsible for research and land management, agricultural and natural
resource agencies of State governments and the scientific community at
large.''
I am very pleased to support this bill, with emphasis on invasive
species, because in Michigan we have a terrible problem. When the zebra
mussels hitched a ride in ship ballast water and were introduced to the
Great Lakes and other bodies of water, their populations exploded.
These animals are continuing to cause serious ecological and economic
damage in my region, and I believe we need much more research to
understand the basic biology and ecology of this organism if we are
ever to hope to control it.
I also believe that we need much more information to help us identify
potentially invasive species before they are introduced to new
ecosystems. We could avoid a great deal of harm and expense if we were
able to devise means to evaluate the potential invasiveness of new
plants and animals.
I believe that the gentlewoman from California's (Ms. Woolsey)
proposal is a sound one that will bring us forward in the debate around
invasive species and understanding our ecology in general. I urge
Members to support this amendment.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Gutknecht) might also be relating to this, but in the bioterrorism
bill that we passed a couple of weeks ago, we did include over $190
million to USDA, additional funding to the Department of Energy,
specifically for this purpose. So that bioterrorism bill included a lot
of the goals that I hear some of my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle suggest we need.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I rise in opposition
to the amendment, and I know that the author and the supporters of this
amendment are very sincere. They feel very strongly about the issues,
but I want to clarify something here for the rest of the Members.
We are really not talking about zebra mussels in this amendment, and
we are not talking about purple loosestrife. What we are really talking
about is whether or not we are going to take actions on the floor of
the House of Representatives to limit the amount of research that can
be done on biology and new plant species and things that are happening
in biotechnology.
What that says is we are not spending enough on that area now, and
the truth of the matter is there is nothing in this authorization today
that would limit the amount that the National Science Foundation could
spend on these kinds of programs, but it is, in fact, a way of
tinkering. So this is redundant. It is unneeded and, worse than that,
it is politicizing what I think has been a very nonpolitical markup and
as we have worked through this process.
Historically, we in Congress, I think, have done a very good job of
not trying to politicize or get our fingers into these kinds of
decisions. We have had an awful lot of research about biology and new
biotechnology, and all of it has come to this same conclusion, and that
is, that the work that is being done in both the government-funded
labs, as well as in private labs, is both safe and has no detrimental
impact on the environment.
We have had all kinds of scares. What the authors are trying to do
really is they are once again introducing the idea that we can somehow
disprove the negative. They know that that cannot happen, and this is a
toe in the door for some of these researchers to say, well, the answer,
of course, is we have to have more money, but understand that when
those particular researchers, attempting to disprove a negative which
cannot be disproved, when they take more money, it comes at the expense
of other important research.
I believe this research has to go forward. I think the USDA, the
National Science Foundation, other groups that are doing this kind of
research, they are doing it with very good scientists who understand
that there are consequences, but more importantly, if we try to limit
the work that is done in biotechnology, what we are working on today is
developing plant species that can actually cure diseases.
That is amazing. It is wonderful. We should not try to stymie that
kind of research. We are developing new plant species which are much
more resistant to pests and other problems they might encounter so we
can use less in terms of pesticides on those plants. That again is a
wonderful discovery.
And also understand, most of the food that we eat today is a result
of biotechnology. The Native Americans did a wonderful job in creating
what we now know is corn. They actually developed that from what was
formerly known as maize. The potato was something that was actually
crossbred and developed by the American Indian. All that we enjoy, much
of what we enjoy today in terms of things that we take for granted,
were developed with biotechnology.
This is a thinly veiled attempt to politicize what has been a very
nonpolitical markup, and the way that the Congress has dealt with it, I
think it is a bad idea. It sets a very bad precedent because if this
amendment is adopted, I promise my colleagues we will see more and more
amendments by Members attempting to advance a political cause they
believe in. I think it is a very big mistake, and I hope the Members
will join me in opposing this amendment.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike
the requisite number of words.
[[Page H3200]]
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for
yielding to me. I have two responses to the gentleman from Michigan's
(Mr. Smith) objections to my amendment.
First, in talking about the changes that differed from what my
amendment was in committee and to what we have brought to the floor, my
changes were based on the committee's objections. So I came here
prepared to improve upon what we had talked about earlier.
In the amendment in committee, we had the funding come from a small
account in the plant genome program, and now my amendment would allow
the NSF director to decide where within an $11 billion research account
my $35 million program could be funded. That is not a lot of money
within a large account, and so I wanted to make sure my colleague knew
why that had changed.
It is $15 million in the first year of the bill, $20 million in the
second year of the bill, and nothing specified in the third year
because we have required a report from the NSF with their recommended
levels for future years. So we are not assuming beyond the first 2
years.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) has said that his bill
already covers this, his bill that I voted for, H.R. 2051, to establish
plant genome research centers which also authorizes research on basic
research and dissemination of information on the ecological and other
consequences of genetically engineered plants. His does that. My
amendment expands upon the gentleman's bill, and my program covers
plants and animals that would not be restricted to research on
genetically engineered plants and animals. So it expands his good ideas
but makes it larger.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from
Michigan.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, a couple of reactions, one
supporting this concept. I am informed that the language of the
gentlewoman's amendment limits the amount that can be spent on this
effort, and who is to say it should be more, and I just suggest rather
than let politicians deciding, let us let the scientific community make
that decision, not limit it or pre-guess what is the right amount.
I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond that I think I am
sitting on the wrong side of the aisle when it is this side of the
aisle who would limit a budget, and it is the gentleman's side of the
aisle challenging that.
So this is the beginning of something that the public wants us to do,
and I think we are making a great mistake if we do not vote for this
because it is the right thing to do, and it is the environmentally
friendly thing to do, and it would help our public know what is safe
and what is not safe by having scientific studies, not emotional
rhetoric, about what is going on with these programs.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
I rise to enthusiastically support the distinguished gentlewoman from
California's (Ms. Woolsey) amendment, and let me say to the proponents,
this is a good bill, and I appreciate the leadership of the Committee
on Science for the collaborative way in which this bill, the
authorization of the National Science Foundation, has been done.
Let me comment that the importance of science in America could not be
more important now. When we begin to talk about homeland security and
the new challenges that we will face in the 21st century to ensure
safety in our community, science is important. Training of girls and
boys and the training of minorities in science, preparing them for the
21st century, funding those kinds of institutions, providing such
programs is important.
That is why I connect the value of the gentlewoman from California's
(Ms. Woolsey) amendment because it is a simple, common sense amendment.
If we could sort of move away from issues of politicizing and
depoliticizing, let me say what this amendment does.
It simply provides a steady stream of funding to study the impact of
biotechnology on plants and ecosystems where there is not.
{time} 1515
I would say to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) that we all
supported his legislation that was recently passed: 2051. In that
legislation, the gentleman did in fact earmark, and that is simply what
is going on here. What we are responding to, however, is our
instructor, our instructor is the National Academy of Sciences, which
has called for implicit and significant increased funding for the
particular aspect of the Woolsey amendment.
So, in fact, what is occurring is that the Woolsey amendment supports
the National Academy of Sciences to provide monies for this kind of
research. In fact, it has recommended this kind of research to study
the ecological impact of plants bred conventionally and through
biotechnology.
I would also simply say to my good friend from Minnesota that
depoliticizing the issue is what we are doing. We are not politicizing
it. What we are simply trying to do is to give the funding stream to
get good science in order to be able to regulate properly. And that
means if we get the research, the basic research, we know how to do the
job.
I believe the American public is more than prepared now to understand
that this is not a question of limiting the funds. The Woolsey
amendment does not limit it; it gives it a funding stream. If we need
more monies, I am sure that with an intelligent response by the
Congress we can add more money. So this is not a limit. This is
providing a continuous funding stream in order to be able to do the
kind of research.
Might I just restate the utilization of H.R. 2051, the bill of the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), was to establish plant genome
research centers and which authorize research on basic research and
dissemination of information on the ecological and other consequences
of genetically engineered plants. This program would cover plants and
animals and would not be restricted to research on genetically
engineered plants and animals. This, however, has to be expanded; and
the Woolsey amendment, I am very glad to say, goes a step further and
begins to do the research that is necessary, the impact of
biotechnology on plants and the ecosystems.
I close this by simply saying this, Mr. Chairman. It is interesting
how as we mature and learn we find out that what we used to ridicule we
find is truth. It is interesting that the present administration and
others who support their policies ridiculed global warming, but just
the other day those representatives of this administration put forward
a report that said, you know what, global warming exists. Good science
tells us that global warming exists and we have a problem.
Interestingly enough, the present administration had to concede. And,
of course, we understand that it was refuted and that individuals who
put forward the report were called a bunch of bureaucrats. But truth
will find a way.
This is what the Woolsey amendment offers to do, gives us the truth
and the information that allows us to go forward and make an effective
determination on how we can regulate this particular issue. And I would
believe that our instructor, the National Academy of Sciences, could
not be wrong in insisting that we need a significant increase in
funding. I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment. I do not
even rise reluctantly to oppose it, because I think it is ill advised.
It is ill advised for several reasons. The type of research that is
being outlined here is already being conducted, not just in the NSF but
in various other agencies that are interested in it, the Department of
Agriculture, the EPA; and I am sure NIH is looking at some aspects of
it as well.
But my main reason for objection has to do with the history of the
National Science Foundation. The National
[[Page H3201]]
Science Foundation arose out of a report written by Vannevar Bush at
the request of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1945. That report set out
the basic structure of the National Science Foundation, and the basic
idea of that report was that this would be an agency that would do
scientific research, the priorities would be set by the scientists
based on the scientific evidence, and that the research to be conducted
would be peer reviewed by other scientists so that we would have good
science done in this country.
It has an outstanding record. We have heard already that we have had
over 100 Nobel prizes awarded to people who have received National
Science Foundation grants. The basic idea is that the Congress would
keep its hands off of specific appropriations for specific projects. It
is very disappointing that this bill, which received unanimous support
in committee and appears to have received unanimous support in debate
on the floor, has this introduced where we are trying to earmark money
for a specific pet project.
I can tell my colleagues that I can quickly list 20 pet projects that
I think the NSF should be conducting research on and that they should
be spending more money on. But the idea behind the NSF is that we do
not allocate that money here, particularly in authorization bills;
that, in fact, the work done there is based on the scientific judgments
collectively gathered from the scientific community in this Nation.
It is entirely inappropriate for us to sit here on the House floor in
an authorizing bill and try to designate funding for a particular
project which a few Members of this body believe are important above
and beyond all the other scientific research that we are considering in
this Nation.
I object to this amendment. I hope that it is defeated, and I urge my
colleagues to vote against it.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CARDIN. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me,
and I would like to point out, in responding to the statement that we
are doing this already, that I have a quote on page 255 of the National
Academy of Sciences Report of 2002, and I quote ``Formal research
support in the United States for the study of environmental impacts on
transgenic plants has been sparse.'' In other words, we are not doing
enough.
And in responding to the statement of my good friend, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), that we do not identify how we spend NSF
funds, we just give them a big pot of money, we do have other programs
that are identified. We spend money on advanced technological
education, on Noyce scholarships, math and science scholarship
programs, minority-serving institutions and undergraduate programs, and
the Presidential Science Teacher awards, for example. That is just a
list of the few things that we do.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CARDIN. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, the items the gentlewoman has mentioned are
all, if I heard them correctly, are all in the educational area, and
are not directing research within the agency.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman continue to yield?
Mr. CARDIN. I yield once again to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I would respond that they are still in
NSF, and that is what we are saying. The gentleman is saying we do not
identify programs that we invest money in other than just general
funds. We do decide what is important under NSF when we choose to.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment, and let me just say
that I have a great deal of fear that the money that is going into
science is quite often politicized, and there is evidence of that
around. I think the amendment that the gentlewoman is suggesting would
lead in that direction and we should be very wary of these types of
earmarks.
What I think the gentlewoman would actually do is create a situation
where money was earmarked for this particular biotechnology type of
research and the word would go out that if anyone wants to create
scares about biotechnology they should come and get their grant because
this is what this money is for.
We have seen the same sort of thing happen before. We saw it happen
with global warming. My fellow colleague and friend, the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), suggested there has been a ``change'' in
administration policy on global warming. Well, I am not sure what that
change in policy is, but it is very clear that that issue has been so
politicized by the introduction of tax dollars through the various
National Science Foundation, NASA, et cetera, that the public has not
been getting pure science, but it has been getting politicized science.
In the early 1980s, there was a consensus, and in fact there were
hearings in this Congress, in our committee, reaffirming the great
threat that the global climate change posed to humankind. In fact, we
had hearings in which the Democratic leaders of the committees at that
time, because the Democrats controlled the House, they controlled the
committees, made statements about the horrible threat of this global
climate change. The only trouble was the climate change they were
talking about and the scientists they brought in to verify it were
warning us of global cooling.
Some of those scientists, I might add, are now on the payroll
advocating that we have to fear global warming. Now, all of that in a
20-year time period. They reversed themselves on this important issue
in a 20-year period. Now, supposedly the global warming trend and the
global cooling trend, whatever it is, has been going on for thousands
and thousands of years, yet they reversed themselves in a 20-year
period as to what the government had to emphasize in order to save
humankind.
If we had taken their prescriptions, obviously we would have been
going in exactly the wrong direction. And I would predict in about 5
years from now there will be some other major revelation to the
scientific community, as government grants are given in this way or
that way; and we might find that it is neither global warming nor
global cooling, but something to do with the Earth on its axis or
something going towards the Moon or the sun, or something else we
deserve to spend billions of dollars and direct it towards the
scientists who will be able to warn us about it.
Let me just note that we have seen the glaciers in our country and
other countries receding for about 100,000 years now. There has been
climate change in the world, and it has been getting warmer for
hundreds of thousands of years. Yet in order to prove that humankind in
the last 5,000, or actually the last 500 years is causing this global
climate change, we are spending billions and billions of science
dollars.
We have got to quit politicizing science. This amendment, I believe,
goes in exactly the wrong direction. But let me note this. Politicized
science is probably the worst threat that we have right now to
understanding the actual perils that might face us in the future.
I still remember the ``Global 2000 Report,'' and I would recommend
that my colleagues read the ``Global 2000 Report'' that was put out in
1980, financed of course by tax dollars. The ``Global 2000 Report,'' I
believe, warned us against global cooling, but my colleagues can check
into that. I do not remember that precisely, but I do remember they
said we would be totally out of oil by the year 2000 and that gasoline
would cost about $150 a gallon, or something like that, and all of our
natural resources would be depleted. In other words, there was this
great threat, this great scare that was put out in the ``Global 2000
Report,'' and every one of their conclusions were wrong, now that we
have passed the year 2000. Do my colleagues know why it was wrong? It
is because it was politicized science.
I think that we have to, and we are dealing with this committee and
we are dealing with our expenditures, we have to go out of our way,
bend over backwards to ensure that we are not politicizing science;
that we are not taking up a trendy issue and asking the scientific
community to verify it in order
[[Page H3202]]
to get government grants. That is why I would oppose the Woolsey
amendment.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me,
and I would like to respond to the gentleman from California when he
talks about biotechnology research and global climate reports that our
President and his administration put forth a report this weekend to the
U.N. acknowledging global climate change, and telling the world to
adapt, just get used to it.
{time} 1530
Mr. Chairman, what are we going to tell the monarch butterflies when
they are having to adapt to genetically modified corn? They cannot
adapt. They are dying. We have to look into what we can do about that,
and that is what this amendment is about. It is about good science, not
about emotions.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I generally agree with
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), but I do have to correct
one thing the gentlewoman said, the President and the administration
put out a report. Actually, the administration put out a report. The
President seemed to be quite surprised by it, not to the point of
actually reading it, because I think it would take more than that to
get him to read it; but I was struck by the President's bemusement by
the report.
So just because the EPA and a group of scientists have said something
does not mean that the President chooses to associate himself with it.
That does not detract from the validity of the report, but it did seem
to me to be a rather interesting precedent being set of a President
expressing his surprise that a report issued in his administration's
name ought to be noted.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair will count for a quorum.
Does the gentlewoman withdraw the point of order?
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Is an insufficient
number standing, in your opinion, for a recorded vote?
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman withdraws her point of
order.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 165,
noes 259, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 211]
AYES--165
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Bishop
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Smith (WA)
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
NOES--259
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Menendez
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--10
Blagojevich
Gilchrest
Hilliard
LaFalce
Meeks (NY)
Morella
Peterson (PA)
Riley
Slaughter
Traficant
{time} 1557
Messrs. SAXTON, HALL of Ohio, SIMMONS, SHOWS, CRAMER, Mrs. THURMAN
and Messrs. RYUN of Kansas, CRENSHAW and COX changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. DAVIS of Florida and Mr.
ORTIZ changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). The question is on the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Simpson) having assumed the chair,
[[Page H3203]]
Mr. Bonilla, Chairman pro tempore of the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had
under consideration the bill (H.R. 4664) to authorize appropriations
for fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005 for the National Science
Foundation, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 432,
he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the
Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 397,
noes 25, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 212]
AYES--397
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Boozman
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hill
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Dan
Miller, George
Miller, Jeff
Mink
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--25
Collins
Deal
Flake
Herger
Hostettler
Hyde
Jones (NC)
Kerns
Kingston
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Norwood
Paul
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Rohrabacher
Royce
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Stearns
Stump
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Weldon (FL)
NOT VOTING--12
Blagojevich
Callahan
Gilchrest
Hilliard
LaFalce
Meeks (NY)
Morella
Ortiz
Peterson (PA)
Riley
Slaughter
Traficant
{time} 1615
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, on final passage of H.R. 4664, Investing in
America's Future Act, I was on the House Floor and cast an ``aye'' vote
for H.R. 4664.
I later learned my vote was not recorded. I wanted to advise the
House that had my vote been recorded, I would have voted ``aye'' on
final passage for H.R. 4664.
____________________