[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 59 (Monday, May 3, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4728-S4732]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               ENSURING AMERICA'S FUTURE COMPETITIVENESS

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I also want to comment about another 
subject which is not as much on the minds of the American public, but 
it clearly is on the minds of some.
  There is an article that I ask unanimous consent be printed in the 
Record immediately following my remarks from today's New York Times by 
William Broad entitled ``U.S. Is Losing Its Dominance in the 
Sciences.''
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that a 
speech Senator Daschle gave 2 weeks ago to the American Association for 
the Advancement of Science be printed in the Record following my 
remarks.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (See exhibit 2.)
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the author of this report on the front 
page of the New York Times today, Mr. Broad, points to several trends 
that are working against the United States with regard to our world 
leadership position in science and technology. He points out the 
percentage of patents issued to Americans is declining. He points out 
the portion of published research attributable to Americans in top 
physics journals is decreasing. He points out the number of Nobel 
Prizes awarded in the basic sciences to Americans is decreasing. He 
points out the number of doctoral degrees granted in science and 
engineering in this country is on the decline. He points out the 
declining percentage of science and engineering doctoral degree 
candidates from foreign countries who are planning to stay in the 
United States after they graduate. This last phenomenon I referred to 
has been dubbed ``the reverse brain drain.'' He talks extensively about 
that.
  The simple fact is, the world has become a highly competitive place 
with regard to science and technology leadership and talent and 
investments. We have historically believed we were the leaders in the 
world in this arena, and we have taken for granted the fact that 
promising young scientists and engineers from other countries would all 
want to come here, to stay here, and contribute to our continued world 
leadership. All of that is now in danger of changing.
  We ignore this challenge to our long-term economic security at our 
own peril. This challenge requires strong efforts by our Government and 
our industry to counter the strong efforts that are being made in other 
countries, and to match the strong efforts that are being made in other 
countries in this field.
  So what needs to be done? Let me list briefly six areas on which I 
think we ought to take aggressive action. The first area relates to 
research frontiers. We need to start by focusing on broad support for 
basic science and engineering research across the board, as well 

[[Page S4729]]

as on targeted investments in critical emerging technologies that will 
drive future job growth and economic growth in this economy.

  Unfortunately, in terms of broad-based basic research support, we 
have a pattern of underfunding across the physical sciences and 
engineering, and that is in comparison particularly to what we have 
been doing in biological and life sciences for several years. I do not 
advocate reducing our commitment to the biological and life sciences, 
but I strongly advocate a comparable commitment to maintaining our 
leadership in the physical sciences and engineering.
  In terms of targeted research and development, there are many areas 
where there are promising developments that we should be paying 
attention to. Let me cite three examples. One is high-end computing. 
Japan today is the world leader in high-end computing with their Earth 
Simulator supercomputer. That is a sad statement to make on this Senate 
floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to continue for another 5 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. That is a sad statement because I can remember a decade 
ago when the United States was the unrivaled leader in high-end 
computing. We need to do much better in this field.
  Senator Lamar Alexander and I have introduced the High-End Computing 
Revitalization Act. I hope that the leadership in the Senate will see 
fit to move this legislation this year, and that we will receive strong 
support from our colleagues.
  Nanotechnology is another area. Although Congress passed a 
nanotechnology bill last year, and the President signed the bill with 
great fanfare, the truth is, we are not putting the needed funding into 
it. The administration has not requested sufficient funding. We are not 
committing the money. This is another major shortfall.
  The next specific area I believe we need to target is next-generation 
lighting. I have spoken several times about that on the Senate floor. 
Semiconductor lighting has the promise to greatly increase the 
efficiency of lighting devices and also to create an enormous number of 
jobs. The estimate is this will be a $12 billion per year industry for 
these devices in the future. The question is, where will the leadership 
be in developing these devices? Will we maintain some of that 
leadership in this country? And where will the high-wage jobs be 
created by this? I hope those jobs will be created in the United 
States, but Congress needs to act to ensure that.
  A second area deals with the training of scientists and engineers. An 
enormous amount needs to be done to better prepare our own students for 
careers in these fields. We do too little in those areas. We need to do 
better. We now have the added concern that the foreign students who 
have traditionally come here to study are, first, finding visa problems 
that keep them from coming here; and, second, are deciding not to stay 
once they complete their education but go back to their home country. 
This is a precursor to the shifting of more and more research and 
development activity out of this country and into other countries 
around the world, which I think is a very bad trend for our 
economic future.

  The third area is infrastructure. The National Science Foundation 
estimates there are roughly $10 billion of unfilled needs for science 
and engineering facilities at universities. Unfortunately, the system 
we have in Congress today to fund these needs is through random, 
uncoordinated earmarks to appropriations bills. This is totally 
unacceptable. We need a merit-oriented solution that involves a look at 
the merits of the request and the need, and also the commitment that 
State and local governments are willing to make to creating this 
infrastructure.
  The fourth area is finance. We need public policies and strategies to 
expand the pool of risk capital for entrepreneurial investment.
  A fifth strategy is public-private sector interactions. We need to 
fully fund the Advanced Technology Program and the Manufacturing 
Extension Partnerships. The administration's request that we zero-fund 
the Advanced Technology Program is totally wrongheaded, in my view, and 
clearly needs to be rejected by this Congress. We should have the 
Federal Government take a stronger role in supporting science parks and 
incubators around this country as well.
  The final area I would mention is regulation and trade policy. We 
need to recognize the strategic importance of legal or regulatory 
structures to high-technology industries. We need to increase the 
efforts to protect intellectual property, to support fair competition 
regimes, to enforce legitimacy and transparency in the global market 
system, and to assure access by U.S. companies to these markets.
  We need to spend some time better monitoring and being sure we are 
getting fair treatment under the trade agreements we have already 
entered into instead of rushing forward pellmell trying to find new 
agreements we can sign.
  We need to focus on export promotion. There is way too little 
attention to export promotion.
  We need to focus on assistance programs for those people who are 
displaced and those communities that are damaged by increased trade. 
The current administration and, unfortunately, the Congress in the last 
few years have not done what needed to be done in this area. We have no 
formal science and technology policy. The administration has 
undermanned and seemingly neglected the Office of Science and 
Technology Policy.
  In previous remarks to the Senate, I have gone through a list of the 
proposed cuts by this administration to basic science and applied 
research in the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the 
Agriculture Department, in the transportation sector, the Department of 
Energy's Office of Science, the Advanced Technology Program in the 
Department of Commerce.
  These include:
  $660 million in cuts proposed for basic and applied research at the 
Department of Defense, the sort of research that has the greatest 
potential for dual use and effective spin-off to the civilian high-
technology industries;
  $63 million in cuts for energy conservation R&D at the Department of 
Energy;
  $183 million in cuts for FY 2005 for agricultural research;
  $24 million in cuts for transportation research; and
  $68 million in cuts for the Department of Energy's Office of Science, 
a major supporter of basic physical sciences and engineering research--
we have 40 Democratic Senators and 15 Republicans on a letter asking 
for increased funding rather than cuts here--and;
  total elimination of the Advanced Technology Program at the 
Department of Commerce, a loss of $171 million for new technologies 
that otherwise would have been enabled and brought to commercial 
reality. This is a highly successful program praised by the national 
academies and even the President's own budget language, cut for short-
sighted ideological reasons.
  For the sake of our future national competitiveness, we need to face 
up to the challenges and technological revolutions of the 21st century 
and ensure that the United States has an effective plan for taking them 
on. It would be my hope that the coming Presidential election will 
serve as an opportunity to reflect on the ineffective ways in which we 
are currently addressing these issues, and to put forth the case that 
we need a comprehensive change in our policies to ensure our future 
competitiveness.
  I yield the floor.

                                Exhibit 1

                 [From the New York Times, May 3, 2004]

              U.S. Is Losing Its Dominance in the Sciences

                          (By William J. Broad)

        The United States has started to lose its worldwide 
     dominance in critical areas of science and innovation, 
     according to federal and private experts who point to strong 
     evidence like prizes awarded to Americans and the number of 
     papers in major professional journals.
        Foreign advances in basic science now often rival or even 
     exceed America's, apparently with little public awareness of 
     the trend or its implications for jobs, industry, national 
     security or the vigor of the nation's intellectual and 
     cultural life.
        ``The rest of the world is catching up,'' said John E. 
     Jankowski, a senior analyst at the

[[Page S4730]]

     National Science Foundation, the federal agency that tracks 
     science trends. ``Science excellence is no longer the domain 
     of just the U.S.''
        Even analysts worried by the trend concede that an 
     expansion of the world's brain trust, with new approaches, 
     could invigorate the fight against disease, develop new 
     sources of energy had wrestle with knotty environmental 
     problems. But profits from the breakthroughs are likely to 
     stay overseas, and this country will face competition for 
     things like hiring scientific talent and getting space to 
     showcase its work in top journals.
        One area of international competition involves patents. 
     Americans still win large numbers of them, but the percentage 
     is falling as foreigners, especially Asians, have become more 
     active and in some fields have seized the innovation lead. 
     The United States' share of its own industrial patents has 
     fallen steadily over the decades and now stands at 52 
     percent.
        A more concrete decline can be seen in published research. 
     Physical Review, a series of top physics journals, recently 
     tracked a reversal in which American papers, in two decades, 
     fell from the most to a minority. Last year the total was 
     just 29 percent, down from 61 percent in 1983.
        China, said Martin Blume, the journals' editor, has surged 
     ahead by submitting more than 1,000 papers a year. ``Other 
     scientific publishers are seeing the same kind of thing,'' he 
     added.
        Another downturn centers on the Nobel Prizes, an icon of 
     scientific excellence. Traditionally, the United States, 
     powered by heavy federal investments in basic research, the 
     kind that pursue fundamental questions of nature, dominated 
     the awards.
        But the American share, after peaking from the 1960's 
     through the 1990's, has fallen in the 2000's to about half, 
     51 percent. The rest went to Britain, Japan, Russia, Germany, 
     Sweden, Switzerland and New Zealand.
        ``We are in a new world, and it's increasingly going to be 
     dominated by countries other than the United States,'' Denis 
     Simon, dean of management and technology at the Rensselaer 
     Polytechnic Institute, recently said at a scientific 
     meeting in Washington.
       Europe and Asia are ascendant, analysts say, even if their 
     achievements go unnoticed in the United States. In March, for 
     example, European scientists announced that one of their 
     planetary probes had detected methane in the atmosphere of 
     Mars--a possible sign that alien microbes live beneath the 
     planet's surface. The finding made headlines from Paris to 
     Melbourne. But most Americans, bombarded with images from 
     America's own rovers successfully exploring the red planet, 
     missed the foreign news.
       More aggressively, Europe is seeking to dominate particle 
     physics by building the world's most powerful atom smasher, 
     set for its debut in 2007. Its circular tunnel is 17 miles 
     around.
       Science analysts say Asia's push for excellence promises to 
     be even more challenging.
       ``It's unbelievable,'' Diana Hicks, chairwoman of the 
     school of public policy at the Georgia Institute of 
     Technology, said of Asia's growth in science and technical 
     innovation. ``It's amazing to see these output numbers of 
     papers and patents going up so fast.''
       Analysts say comparative American declines are an 
     inevitable result of rising standards of living around the 
     globe.
       ``It's all in the ebb and flow of globalization,'' said 
     Jack Fritz, a senior officer at the National Academy of 
     Engineering, an advisory body to the federal government. He 
     called the declines ``the next big thing we will have to 
     adjust to.''
       The rapidly changing American status has not gone unnoticed 
     by politicians, with Democrats on the attack and the White 
     House on the defensive.
       ``We stand at a pivotal moment,'' Tom Daschle, the Senate 
     Democratic leader, recently said at a policy forum in 
     Washington at the American Association for the Advancement of 
     Science, the nation's top general science group. ``For all 
     our past successes, there are disturbing signs that America's 
     dominant position in the scientific world is being shaken.''
       Mr. Daschle accused the Bush administration of weakening 
     the nation's science base by failing to provide enough money 
     for cutting-edge research.
       The president's science adviser, John H. Marburger III, who 
     attended the forum, strongly denied that charge, saying in an 
     interview that overall research budgets during the Bush 
     administration have soared to record highs and that the 
     science establishment is strong.
       ``The sky is not falling on science,'' Dr. Marburger said. 
     ``Maybe there are some clouds--no, things that need 
     attention.'' Any problems, he added, are within the power of 
     the United States to deal with in a way that maintains the 
     vitality of the research enterprise.
       Analysts say Mr. Daschle and Dr. Marburger can both supply 
     data that supports their positions.
       A major question, they add, is whether big spending 
     automatically translates into big rewards, as it did in the 
     past. During the cold war, the government pumped more than $1 
     trillion into research, with a wealth of benefits including 
     lasers, longer life expectancies, men on the Moon and the 
     prestige of many Nobel Prizes.
       Today, federal research budgets are still record highs; 
     this year more than $126 billion has been allocated to 
     research. Moreover, American industry makes extensive use of 
     federal research in producing its innovations and adds its 
     own vast sums of money, the combination dwarfing that of any 
     other nation or bloc.
       But the edifice is less formidable than it seems, in part 
     because of the nation's costly and unique military role. This 
     year, financing for military research hit $66 billion, higher 
     in fixed dollars than in the cold war and far higher than in 
     any other country.
       For all the spending, the United States began to experience 
     a number of scientific declines in the 1990's, boom years for 
     the nation's overall economy.
       For instance, scientific papers by Americans peaked in 1992 
     and then fell roughly 10 percent, the National Science 
     Foundation reports. Why? Many analysts point to rising 
     foreign competition, as does the European Commission, which 
     also monitors global science trends. In a study last year, 
     the commission said Europe surpassed the United States in the 
     mid-1990's as the world's largest producer of scientific 
     literature.
       Dr. Hicks of Georgia Tech said that American scientists, 
     when top journals reject their papers, usually have no idea 
     that rising foreign competition may be to blame.
       On another front, the numbers of new doctorates in the 
     sciences peaked in 1998 and then fell 5 percent the next 
     year, a loss of more than 1,300 new scientists, according to 
     the foundation.
       A minor exodus also hit one of the hidden strengths of 
     American science: vast ranks of bright foreigners. In a 
     significant shift of demographics, they began to leave in 
     what experts call a reverse brain drain. After peaking in the 
     mid-1990's, the number of doctoral students from China, India 
     and Taiwan with plans to stay in the United States began to 
     fall by the hundreds, according to the foundation.
       These declines are important, analysts say, because new 
     scientific knowledge is an engine of the American Economy and 
     technical innovation, its influence evident in everything 
     from potent drugs to fast computer chips.
       Patents are a main way that companies and inventors reap 
     commercial rewards from their ideas and stay competitive in 
     the marketplace while improving the lives of million.
       Foreigners outside the United States are playing an 
     increasingly important role in these expressions of 
     industrial creativity. In a recent study, CHI Research, a 
     consulting firm in Haddon Height, N.J., found that 
     researchers in Japan, Taiwan and South Korea now account for 
     more than a quarter of all United States industrial patents 
     awarded each year, generating revenue for their own countries 
     and limiting it in the United States.
       Moreover, their growth rates are rapid. Between 1980 and 
     2003, South Korea went from 0 to 2 percent of the total, 
     Taiwan from 0 to 3 percent and Japan from 12 to 21 percent.
       ``It's not just lots of patents,'' Francis Narin, CHI's 
     president, said of the Asian rise. ``It's lots of good 
     patents that have a high impact,'' as measured by how often 
     subsequent patents cite them.
       Recently, Dr. Narin added, both Taiwan and Singapore surged 
     ahead of the United States in the overall  number of 
     citations. Singapore's patents include ones in chemicals, 
     semiconductors, electronics and industrial tools.
        China represents the next wave, experts agree, its 
     scientific rise still too fresh to show up in most statistics 
     but already apparent. Dr. Simon of Rensselaer said that about 
     400 foreign companies had recently set up research centers in 
     China, with General Electric, for instance, doing important 
     work there on medical scanners, which means fewer skilled 
     jobs in America.
        Ross Armbrecht, president of the Industrial Research 
     Institute, a nonprofit group in Washington that represents 
     large American companies, said businesses were going to China 
     not just because of low costs but to take advantage of 
     China's growing scientific excellence.
        ``It's frightening,'' Dr. Armbrecht said. ``But you've got 
     to go where the horses are.'' An eventual danger, he added, 
     is the slow loss of intellectual property as local 
     professionals start their own businesses with what they have 
     learned from American companies.
        For the United States, future trends look challenging, 
     many analysts say.
        In a report last month, the American Association for the 
     Advancement of Science said the Bush administration, to live 
     up to its pledge to halve the nation's budget deficit in the 
     next five years, would cut research financing at 21 of 24 
     Federal agencies--all those that do or finance science except 
     those involved in space and national and domestic security.
        More troubling to some experts is the likelihood of an 
     accelerating loss of quality scientists. Applications from 
     foreign graduate students to research universities are down 
     by a quarter, experts say, partly because of the Federal 
     government's tightening of visas after the 2001 terrorist 
     attacks.
        Shirley Ann Jackson, president of the American Association 
     for the Advancement of Science, told the recent forum 
     audience that the drop in foreign students, the apparently 
     declining interest of young Americans in science careers and 
     the aging of the technical work force were, taken together, a 
     perilous combination of developments.
        ``Who,'' she asked, ``will do the science of this 
     millennium?''
        Several private groups, including the Council on 
     Competitiveness, an organization

[[Page S4731]]

     in Washington that seeks policies to promote industrial 
     vigor, have begun to agitate for wide debate and action.
        ``Many other countries have realized that science and 
     technology are key to economic growth and prosperity,'' said 
     Jennifer Bond, the council's vice president for international 
     affairs. ``They're catching up to us,'' she said, warning 
     Americans not to ``rest on our laurels.''
                                  ____


    Remarks of Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle to the American 
               Association for the Advancement of Science

       Thank you, Dr. [Shirley] Jackson, for that warm 
     introduction, and for the tremendous work you are doing. Few 
     people alive today can claim to have done as much to advance 
     both the cause, and the frontiers of science.
       It is a great honor for me to address such a distinguished 
     group of scientists and thinkers. Since my childhood, I've 
     been fascinated with science, perhaps because I knew my 
     father had hoped to become a geologist before World War II 
     called. But any child of South Dakota grows up with an 
     appreciation for the impact science has on our lives. Whether 
     it's the work of agricultural geneticists improving crop 
     yields, or simply paleontologists explaining the fossils of 
     Rapid City's Dinosaur Park, science has a special place in 
     South Dakota. I chose a different path than a life of 
     science, but I've always been mindful of John Adam's letter 
     to his wife, Abigail, in which he wrote, ``I must study 
     politics and war [so] that my sons may have liberty to study 
     mathematics and philosophy.'' Sooner or later, every elected 
     official needs to come up with a justification for the 
     demands of public office to their husband or wife. I wish I 
     could come up with something as good as John Adams.
       Whatever Adams motivation was for the comment, I share his 
     understanding of the relationship between politics and 
     science. Elected officials have an obligation to maintain our 
     nation's prosperity and peace, not merely for their own sake, 
     but because they provide our citizens the liberty to pursue 
     the higher callings of the mind. History best remembers not 
     the civilizations that have done the most to expand their 
     borders, but those civilizations that have done the most to 
     expand the boundaries of human understanding. These are the 
     accomplishments that resonate through the centuries, and it 
     is the work of America's scientists that will serve as our 
     testimony to history.
       For all the grandeur of intellectual pursuits, America's 
     interest in scientific progress has a pragmatic urgency as 
     well. Today, your discoveries matter more to our every day 
     life than at any other point in human history. Biotechnology 
     and genetics, not to mention the steady progress of medical 
     science and nanotechnology, are extending and improving our 
     lives. The physics of computer science is sparking new 
     industries that employ millions of Americans and enhance the 
     productivity and well-being of countless more.. On the 
     battlefield and in the laboratory, the war on terrorism is 
     being waged, not just with soldiers, but with software armed 
     with artificial intelligence algorithms. America's health, 
     prosperity, and security are tied to your success. And as a 
     result, our obligation to ensure you have the freedom and 
     resources necessary to advance your work is more pressing 
     than ever before.
       This tension between science for the sake of human 
     understanding, and science for the sake of human well-being 
     has marked our history since its first days. Even de 
     Tocqueville thought democracies were ill-equipped to support 
     pure scientific research. The more democratic a society, he 
     wrote ``the more will discoveries immediately applicable to 
     productive industry confer gain, fame, and even power on 
     their authors.''
       But our Founding Fathers had different ideas. Many, most 
     notably Jefferson and Franklin, considered themselves men of 
     science and the government they designed their most daring 
     and novel invention. Jefferson once wrote to a friend, ``We 
     have spent the prime of our lives procuring the precious 
     blessing of liberty. Let [young men] spend theirs in shewing 
     that it is the great parent of science and of virtue.'' So 
     vital was this idea to the American experiment, that the very 
     first coin minted in our country bore the motto, Liberty, 
     Parent of Science and Industry.
       When Jefferson sent Merriwether Lewis across the continent 
     to map the land that held our nation's future, he understood 
     the expedition would have two results. It would serve 
     practical purposes such as easing the westward expansion of 
     the nation and creating new trade relationships with the 
     Indian populations. At the same time, the expedition captured 
     Jefferson's scientific heart. In fact, his first choice to 
     lead the expedition was a French botanist. Jefferson changed 
     his mind, and after offering Lewis an education in botany, 
     geology, geography, and the finer points of navigation, he 
     gave the Lewis a broad and simple directive: explore. The 
     information Lewis and his men brought back represented 
     immense steps forward for American sciences from anthropology 
     to zoology and many in between.
       In many ways, Jefferson's leadership and the Lewis & Clark 
     expedition established the model for government's partnership 
     with science. And in the 200 years since, government support 
     for scientific research had helped invent the telegraph, 
     split the atom, conquer space, create the Internet, map the 
     human genome, and much more. No nation has ever made such an 
     enduring and significant investment in science, and no 
     nation's scientists have done as much to demystify our world 
     and better the quality of life on earth.
       In the years before World War II, America became the 
     adopted home of a generation of scientists fleeing fascism in 
     Europe. Never was the importance of a free society to science 
     more clear. The physicist Emilio Sergre was among those who 
     came to America, emigrating in 1938, and eventually working 
     on the Manhattan Project. ``America,'' he wrote at the time, 
     `` looks like the land of the future.''
       America has always been the land of the future. Throughout 
     our history, we have maintained a remarkable devotion to the 
     simple idea that our children's lives should be better, 
     safer, and richer than our own. This simple idea that we 
     call the American dream has been made real because of the 
     myriad contributions of Americans scientists.
       Today, we stand at a pivotal moment. For all our past 
     successes, there are disturbing signs that America's dominant 
     position in the scientific world is being shaken. According 
     to a recent study, America's rate of scientific discovery is 
     lagging behind that of European countries. The number of 
     scientific papers published by American researchers declined 
     last year, and has been flat for the past several years. In 
     contrast, every country in Europe has increased its rate of 
     discovery. In the last two decades of the 20th century, 
     France, Germany, and the United Kingdom doubled their 
     production of doctorates in science and engineering. Japan 
     doubled its production of science and engineering doctorates 
     in just one of those decades. If this stagnation is allowed 
     to continue, it will have profound implications for every 
     aspect of American society. If we are to remain the land of 
     the future, we must reaffirm the partnership that created 
     America's dominant position within the world of science.
       Regrettably, rather than strengthening this partnership, I 
     fear that the Bush Administration has allowed it to erode in 
     two critical ways. First, the Administration is abdicating 
     its responsibility to provide scientists with the funding 
     cutting-edge research demands. As you know, the federal 
     government has seen its R&D investments steadily decline as a 
     share of the U.S. economy, bringing the federal investment 
     down to levels not seen since the mid-60s. Public-sector 
     investments in advanced research have declined sharply, 
     relative to our economic growth rate, and barely kept pace 
     with inflation. This year, federal funding for research is 
     set to increase 4.7 percent. However, the entire increase 
     would go to the Department of Defense and Homeland Security 
     for the development of weapons systems and counterterrorism 
     technology. Make no mistake, these are necessary investments 
     that will make our nation safer. But the remaining federal 
     R&D budget that supports research into health, environmental, 
     biological, and other sciences, will all see funding reduced.
       In my home state of South Dakota, for instance, the Earth 
     Research Observation System is facing the possibility of deep 
     cuts in staff due to cuts to their budget. Their work helps 
     us become more responsible stewards of the environment, while 
     increasing the yields of farmers all over the world. And yet, 
     this work is endangered due to draconian budget cuts.
       But the administration's disregard for science extends 
     beyond budgetary choices. Just last month, the Union of 
     Concerned Scientists released a report charging the White 
     House with systematically working against the spirit of 
     objective science. The report states that the Bush 
     Administration has suppressed or distorted the scientific 
     analyses offered federal agencies to bring these results in 
     line with administration policy. Time and time again, the 
     Administration is choosing politics over real science.
       Consider the administration's response to global warming. 
     Even though the scientific community is united on the fact 
     that fossil fuel production and consumption has contributed 
     to global warming, the White House deleted that finding from 
     its 2001 report on Global Warming, and in its place inserted 
     a reference to an opposing study that was financed by the 
     American Petroleum Institute.
       In addition, when the administration has had the 
     opportunity, it has stacked the deck by staffing research 
     boards and advisory councils with under-qualified researchers 
     who have shown allegiance to the White House's political 
     goals. Just recently, the President dismissed two advisers 
     from his Council on Bioethics because they were outspoken 
     proponents of research on human embryos.
       This is not real science. This is vending machine science. 
     The administration thinks it can pull a lever and get the 
     results it wants at no cost. But the costs are extraordinary. 
     If history shows anything, it's that a bet against science is 
     a bet you cannot win. For the sake of short-term political 
     posturing, the White House is putting the long-term security, 
     health, and prosperity of our nation at risk.
       Just as importantly, America's reputation as a home for 
     cutting edge science is being diminished. I am hearing from 
     more and more friends in the science community that they are 
     concerned about the support and reception their work will 
     receive in the years to come. They worry that the 
     administration's failure to provide intellectual leadership 
     will erode the high standing American

[[Page S4732]]

     science has achieved since WWII. And I fear their 
     apprehension is well justified.
       But we should be honest with ourselves. Outside the 
     scientific community, there is no hue and cry for more 
     government funding of R&D. There is no widespread public 
     outrage when the administration disregards the unequivocal 
     judgment of the scientific community. And it's unlikely that 
     the science gap growing between the United States and other 
     developed nations will become a major issue in the upcoming 
     Presidential campaign.
       This represents a failure on our part. We have not done 
     enough to show the American people the connection between the 
     work underway in your laboratories and the problems that 
     affect their lives. This must change. The stakes simply could 
     not be higher. What future challenge will we fail to meet 
     because America's scientists were not given the tools they 
     need to discover new answers to old questions? When rumors of 
     a Nazi bomb program reached President Roosevelt, he said 
     simply, ``Whatever the enemy may be planning, American 
     science will be equal to the challenge.'' Will future 
     presidents be able to speak with such confidence?
       The challenge to the American scientific community is to 
     rebuild the link not only between science and government, but 
     between science and society. I believe we can do so, if we 
     return to the model established by Thomas Jefferson. There is 
     an implicit ongoing debate within the government regarding 
     what kind of research is most important to support. Some 
     suggest that we should put no limits on the kind of research 
     we support and have faith that advances in theoretical 
     science, regardless of the field, will inevitably translate 
     into practical applications that improve human life.
       For others, that approach is too abstract. There are real 
     problems, and to spend taxpayer dollars on anything but the 
     most pragmatic search for solutions seems high-minded, but 
     naive. There is merit to each approach. Both kinds of 
     research are critical.
       But Jefferson offered a third way, and, I believe, the 
     right way to make the best use of government's resources, and 
     gain the full support of the American People for the efforts 
     of science. Merriwether Lewis's expedition represented a 
     basic attempt to enlarge the scope of America's understanding 
     of the world around it. It was the stuff of doctoral 
     dissertations. At the same time, because the mission was 
     targeted at the urgent needs of an expanding nation, the 
     voyage captured the support of Washington and the imagination 
     of our young country.
       America saw another tremendous example of this in recent 
     years in the Human Genome Project. The effort pooled the 
     combined wisdom of biology, chemistry, physics, engineering, 
     mathematics, and computer science, tapped the strengths and 
     insights of the public and private sectors, brought together 
     1,000 researchers from six different nations to reveal all 3 
     billion letters of the human genetic code. Few endeavors have 
     brought together such diverse disciplines for a single and 
     pure pursuit of scientific knowledge. The discoveries of the 
     Human Genome Project have created extraordinary promise in 
     the field of medicine, and brought to life an industry that 
     could lead the American economy for a generation to come.
       It has been nearly four years since the human Genome 
     Project concluded its primary objective. If the science 
     policy of this Administration has failed in any way, it has 
     failed here: it has yet to point the way to the next great 
     frontier of human understanding. It has yet to call 
     scientists from every discipline to a single mission of 
     public service.
       Today, we need to rally once again around common goals, and 
     put the broad interests of the nation ahead of the narrow 
     boundaries of scientific disciplines. Surely there is no 
     shortage of challenges. Should we not set our nation's 
     physicists, chemists engineers, and geologists to the task of 
     freeing our nation from the need to import oil? Can we create 
     the scientific and technological foundations for affordable, 
     carbon-free energy sources? Can we ``level the playing 
     field'' for American researchers that lack the resources of 
     our nation's wealthiest universities? Is it beyond our 
     imagination to address the major challenges of developing 
     countries--such as cures and vaccines for AIDS, TB and 
     malaria? In addition to the obvious moral and ethical 
     imperative to do so, the economic and foreign policy benefits 
     from harnessing our scientific and technical talent to foster 
     sustainable development would be profound.
       Let me suggest one final goal that could occupy the best 
     efforts of scientists from every discipline for a generation 
     to come. Now that we have surveyed the map of human life, let 
     us turn our attention to that which makes human life unique: 
     the mind. What challenge would be beyond our reach if we 
     truly understood how we learn, remember, think and 
     communicate? What could we accomplish if our education policy 
     was bolstered with a new understanding of how children learn? 
     How much safer could our neighborhoods be, if neurophysiology 
     solves the puzzle of addiction? What industry would not be 
     strengthened by a more complete picture of the workings of 
     the mind? There is perhaps no field in which major advances 
     would have more profound effects for human progress and 
     health than that of neuroscience. If the American scientific 
     community could come together and communicate to the nation 
     the kaleidoscopic possibilities that could result if we 
     unlocked the secrets of the mind, we could not only achieve 
     untold advances in science, we could open a new chapter in 
     the story of America's support for science.
       Investments in science and technology are the ultimate act 
     of hope, and will create among the most important legacies we 
     can leave. America is still, as Emilio Segre said decades 
     ago, the land of the future. We have held that honor since 
     this continent was discovered by a daring act of science more 
     than 500 years ago. We have earned it anew with each passing 
     generation because America's scientists and public officials 
     have understood the importance of applying the power of 
     American curiosity to most intractable American challenges.
       The hallmark of American science is not that we have been 
     able to overcome each new frontier. The hallmark of American 
     science is that having conquered one, we impatiently seek out 
     new, more distant and difficult frontiers. America will be 
     able to call ourselves the land of the future so long as we 
     dream that the future holds a better life for ourselves, and 
     so long as those of us who, in Adam's words, study politics, 
     continue to invest in your ability to make that dream real.

                          ____________________