[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 88 (Wednesday, June 23, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H4881-H4882]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          KERRY ATTACKS ON BUSH SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY RECORD

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I chair the Subcommittee on 
Research on the Committee on Science, and I am very concerned that 
science and technology should not be in the partisan politic arena for 
this election in November.
  At a speech in Denver on Monday, John Kerry kicked off a week of 
campaign politics focused on science and technology policy. He attacked 
President Bush for putting politics over science and promised to 
reinvigorate American innovation. As chairman of the House Subcommittee 
on Research, and a long-time advocate of expanded support for science 
and technology, I suggest Mr. Kerry is putting politics before science.
  In the strongest possible way, I urge this issue must remain 
bipartisan. Even in today's highly charged political environment, I am 
disappointed that Senator Kerry has chosen to politicize science, and I 
feel compelled to respond to his misleading and actually sometimes 
false statements and attacks on this administration.
  Senator Kerry's fact sheet promises to support scientific research 
based on facts, not ideology, and I respectfully suggest that a good 
place for the Senator to start would be to minimize the distortion of 
facts and ideological rhetoric that are so prevalent in his very own 
press releases on this subject.
  A quick review of the Senator's recent press release on science and 
technology and its accompanying letter of endorsement, signed by some 
Nobel prize winning scientists, reveals several distortions and factual 
errors that should be brought to light. They include: Failure to 
disclose backgrounds of Democrat party activism by these scientists.
  The Kerry campaign touted the endorsement of 48 scientists, as if 
they were speaking on behalf of the welfare of science and discovery 
itself. But, in fact, it is clear these scientists are, collectively, 
also very passionate liberal ideologues with an extensive record of 
support for the Democratic party.
  Twenty-two of Senator Kerry's Nobel endorsers show up on the Federal 
Election Commission, the FEC Web site, as having donated $25,000 to 
Democrats for every $1,000 donated to Republicans. To repeat: $25,000 
to the Democrats for every $1,000 to Republicans. Obviously, some bias 
for the Democrats.
  The lead organizers of the letter, Burton Richter, Harold Varmus, and 
Mario Molina, announced their support for Kerry in a conference call as 
though they were nonpartisan objective observers that had no choice but 
to reluctantly support Kerry's campaign.

                              {time}  2245

  But by way of their public record of financial support for Democratic 
candidates, Richter, Varmus and Molina have consistently used their 
names outside of science, donating $13,950 to Democrats such as Wesley 
Clark, Al Gore, Barbara Boxer and Bill Bradley.
  If Senator Kerry wants to limit the exploitation of science for 
political gain, he should start by fully disclosing the history of 
political contributions by his prize-winning supporters, most of whom 
have had their research supported from government funds.
  One of Mr. Kerry's false claims: The Kerry campaign ``fact sheet'' 
begins by stating that, ``George W. Bush has led one of the most 
antiscience administrations in our Nation's history,'' and goes on to 
claim that the President ``has proposed cutting research and 
development in most nondefense research programs through fiscal year 
2009.''
  This projection is in fact not a Bush administration proposal but, 
rather, a particular result of the AAAS, the American Association for 
the Advancement of Science, that is based on multiyear revenue and 
spending projections, combined with the administration's goal to halve 
the deficit in five years. In short, it is not correct.
  Let me report the assumptions that were made in reality, and what is 
grounded in reality is in the Bush administration and this Congress, 
there has been a stellar record of support for science and technology 
funding. By almost every measure, funding for science and technology 
under President Bush's watch has increased dramatically.
  Since the President took office in 2001, Federal support for R&D has 
increased by 37 percent after adjusting for inflation, growing from $78 
billion to $107 billion in constant 2000 dollars.
  By comparison, Federal support for R&D actually decreased 4 percent 
in President Clinton's first term, going from $77.4 billion in 1993 to 
$74.4 billion the last year of Clinton's term (source: FY 2005 budget, 
historical tables).
  False Claim of America's Scientific Demise. The title of Senator 
Kerry's press release, ``Kerry Pledges to Once Again Make America the 
Leader in Science,'' is emblematic of the pessimistic approach to 
America he has taken with his campaign. If John Kerry doesn't think 
America is the world leader in science and technology, what country 
does he think is better?
  The truth is, by every measure, the United States is far and away the 
800-pound gorilla when it comes to science and technology. The 
challenge is keeping it there and not letting it

[[Page H4882]]

disrupt bipartisan support with a bunch of political cheap shots. The 
U.S. spends nearly three times as much on R&D as the second-place 
country, Japan. And more money is spent on R&D activities in the U.S. 
each year than the rest of the G-7 countries (Canada, France, Germany, 
Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom) combined. The United States also 
holds strong leads in specific sectors. For example, the U.S. produces 
32 percent of the entire world output in high-technology products. 
Technology products also account for a very large share of U.S. 
exports, thereby making a positive contribution to our overall trade 
balance (source: National Science Board Science and Engineering 
Indicators, 2004).
  A Record To Run From. Finally, Senator Kerry likes to attack 
President Bush for ``not having a record to run on.'' But while the 
President indeed does have a strong science and technology record, it 
is worthwhile for us to examine Senator Kerry's record on science and 
technology as a member of the Senate for the past two decades. A review 
of floor statements posted on Senator Kerry's web site show that, over 
the past 4 years, he's only mentioned science four times in floor 
statements. Further, even though Senator Kerry is a member of the 
influential Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, he has not 
introduced any legislation during this Congress on science and 
technology issues. Science, research, and innovation are vital to our 
country's future. Senator Kerry hasn't shown leadership on science and 
technology during his two decades in the Senate. Now he is dividing 
what has been bipartisan support for science and technology. Mr. Kerry, 
it is not good for science and it is not good for our country's future.

                          ____________________