[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 167 (Tuesday, November 18, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15052-S15053]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             AMERICA'S INVESTMENT IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Other than the war in Iraq, I suppose the subject we 
hear most about is jobs. We are worried, as are our constituents, about 
the future. How do we keep good-paying jobs? We are aware that in this 
country of not very many people, compared to the rest of the world, we 
have about 25 percent of all the money in the world. We are a fortunate 
country.
  How do we, as the country grows, and as we worry about global 
competition--especially about how China develops--keep our good-paying 
manufacturing jobs? How do we keep our standard of living? We have 
struggled through that for a long time. We have worried about it for a 
long time.
  After World War II, we helped Europe get back on its feet through the 
Marshall plan and basically provided direct competition there, as the 
people making lower wages began to make some of the things we made. We 
struggled with Japan, worrying about whether the Japanese, in the 
1980s, might take us over economically. But that didn't happen. We were 
able to keep our standard of living. We have watched Africa, the former 
Soviet Union, and other parts of the world grow and develop, even 
though people there were making much lower wages than Americans. We 
have been able to keep our standard of living.
  I want to talk today about one major reason why we have been able to 
keep that standard of living and why there is a lesson for us for the 
future there. I want to talk about our investments in the physical 
sciences, about our investments in science and technology.
  Last week Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham released an exciting 20-
year plan for the future of scientific facilities in our country. This 
plan provides for an exciting future for science that will 
revolutionize science and our society. The plan includes participation 
in international collaborations to make fusion power a reality. It 
strengthens our scientific computing capabilities to develop advanced 
methodologies ranging from modeling chemical reactions to predictions 
of weather and climate change. It includes facilities to develop and 
characterize proteins for microbial research on a grand scale. These 
are just a few of the facilities that are included in Secretary 
Abraham's visionary plan.
  This ambitious plan serves as a reminder that since World War II, 
according to the National Academy of Sciences, half of our job growth 
can be attributed to our investments in science and technology. This 
should also remind us, especially in this era of global competition, 
that future investments in science will be even more important. To 
create more good-paying jobs for Americans, I therefore recommend 
Congress and the administration do for the physical sciences what it 
has done in the last few years for the health and life sciences: double 
the Department of Energy's Office of Science funding, from the current 
$3.3 billion to more than $6 billion per year within the next 5 years.
  Our investments in science and technology have continued to create a 
remarkable legacy of innovation. U.S. patent rates exceed most other 
industrialized countries, a direct result of historically strong 
research and development investments and technological leadership. For 
example, in 1986, the United States had more than double the number of 
patents than the rest of the world, with nearly 80,000 patents granted. 
In 1999, the number of patents granted in the United States was over 
160,000, while those in the rest of the world were less than 80,000. 
There were 160,000 in our country, 80,000 patents in the rest of the 
world. These patents, these innovations, led to new technologies and 
new jobs. Nearly 5.3 million new firms were launched between 1990 and 
1998 that were mainly high-technology companies. Not all of them 
succeeded. But these new firms accounted for one-third of the 10 
million new jobs created between 1990 and 1997.

  However, last fall, the President's Council of Advisers on Science 
and Technology reported funding for research and development is 
becoming dangerously imbalanced. They recommended the funding levels 
for the physical sciences and engineering be improved and that funding 
levels be brought to parity with the life sciences. To correct this 
trend, we should increase the authorizations for a variety of 
scientific and technological endeavors at the DOE. The Department of 
Energy, through its Office of Science, is the largest supporter of 
physical science and engineering research and supports many of the 
federally funded research and development centers in our country. These 
centers are considered by many to be the crown jewels of the R&D 
enterprise in the Nation. These centers and our great research 
universities create the technology of the future that leads to the jobs 
of tomorrow.
  Sometimes I think we take for granted these research universities and 
our great laboratories the Department of Energy runs. We not only have 
more of the great research universities in the world in our country, we 
have almost all of them. Nowhere in the world has national 
laboratories, such as Oak Ridge in my State, or Los Alamos, or more 
than a dozen others across our country. No other country in the world 
has the number of federally funded research institutions such as our 
laboratories that are operated by the Department of Energy, and the 
great research universities of America, which are funded to a great 
extent by Federal funding.
  The Nation must have balanced investment to maintain the overall 
health of science and technology research. Recent funding increases in 
the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation 
cannot compensate for the declines in funding at Federal agencies, such 
as the Department of Energy. Many of the advances in the health 
sciences could not have been realized without past investments in the 
physical sciences. Much of the basic work in the physical sciences, on 
which all other sciences, even the

[[Page S15053]]

biological sciences, are based, is supported by the Department of 
Energy. Harold Varmus, Nobel Laureate and former director of the NIH, 
summed up very nicely the unique relationship between the medical and 
physical sciences in an editorial in the Washington Post.
  He stated in that editorial:

       Medical science can visualize the inner workings of the 
     body. . . . These techniques are the workhorses of medical 
     diagnosis. And not a single one of them could have been 
     developed without the contributions of scientists, such as 
     mathematicians, physicists, and chemists supported by the 
     agencies currently at risk.

  Although this statement was made 3 years ago, it is still true today 
for the Department of Energy Office of Science.
  The fundamental work in high energy and nuclear physics has led to a 
revolution in medicine. Our quality of life has been greatly improved 
with the advent of nuclear medicine. As President Bush recently 
acknowledged, one of every three hospital patients benefits from 
nuclear medicine. None of this would have been possible without the 
fundamental research of physicists in the last century and today, 
physicists who have been supported in large part by the Department of 
Energy and its predecessors.
  Advances in magnetic resonance imaging--we call it MRIs in everyday 
language--could not have been possible without the development of 
superconductors. Small electron linear accelerators are used in 
hospitals every day to treat cancer patients. Yet this would not have 
been possible without our investments in science.
  Likewise, the development of laser and optics technology has led to a 
revolution in medical procedures. Surgeries, such as gall bladder 
removal, that were once invasive and required weeks of recovery, can 
now be performed with a minimal incision and require minimal recovery 
time. None of this would have been possible without the basic research 
performed by scientists at our research universities and National 
Laboratories funded by our Federal investments in science and 
technology.
  We are advancing even further than once imagined, thanks to these 
investments in science. The Department of Energy is leading the way in 
developing materials for creating the artificial retina. The 
development of an artificial retina requires new and innovative 
materials, research, and nanoscale fabrication techniques that are on 
the forefront of science.
  Preliminary models of the artificial retina have enabled patients to 
see for the first time. I saw some of that research being done at Oak 
Ridge. Although these patients did not regain full sight, this is just 
the beginning. This research caused three patients to see for the first 
time. With advancements in materials and fabrication techniques, sight 
may eventually be returned to those who cannot see. This is truly 
amazing. We are just at the edge of what science can do.
  The physical science and engineering will also play a major role in 
advancing technology for homeland security. The development of 
detection systems for chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear 
weapons will require investments in science and technology. Crisis 
response technologies and analyses will also be dependent on science 
and engineering. The daunting challenges of developing countermeasures 
for chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons will be 
addressed in large part by the development and application of our 
scientific capabilities. Our Nation has no choice. We must invest 
heavily in physical sciences and engineering to stay competitive in 
these fields. Our competitiveness is greatly impacted by the number of 
graduate students entering these fields.
  A definite correlation exists between the number of graduate students 
enrolled in science and engineering and the funding levels for these 
fields. The funding levels for the medical sciences have increased more 
than 20 percent over the past decade, and graduate student enrollment 
has increased more than 40 percent. However, there were 20 percent 
fewer graduate students in physics and 9 percent fewer in chemistry in 
2000 than in 1993 while the mathematical sciences had 19 percent fewer 
graduate students. These trends cannot be allowed to continue.
  Science and technology are an integral part of our everyday lives. To 
sustain our Nation's technical and scientific leadership, we must 
support increased authorizations for our science programs. The Energy 
bill reported out of conference will help put our Nation on the path to 
sustained economic growth. But the Energy bill is not just investing in 
science; it is investing in jobs.

  The quality of our lives and the prosperity of our Nation will be 
greatly enhanced and made better if we agree over the next 5 years to 
do for the physical sciences what we have done for the health 
sciences--double our spending--according to the visionary plan that the 
Secretary of Energy laid out for the next 20 years.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

                          ____________________