[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 19 (Wednesday, February 15, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H312-H315]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                              {time}  2030
                  DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS INNOVATIVE AGENDA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jindal). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority 
leader.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am claiming this time 
on behalf of myself and other colleagues who will be joining me shortly 
to talk about what really has made America such an economic power in 
the world and such a leader in both economics and in innovation, and 
that is in the 1960s when President Kennedy made the case to send a 
person to the Moon and to bring that person back safely, it was more 
than a moon shot. It was an expression of optimism about the talent in 
this country and about the resources in this country.
  In the process of sending that individual to the Moon and back, we 
also built a great infrastructure. We built a great infrastructure that 
consisted of one of the great public-private partnerships in the 
history of the world, a partnership between our academic institutions, 
our research institutions, the private sector, and the U.S. Government. 
In putting that partnership together, we created both the physical 
resources to create the rocket ships and the infrastructure at NASA, 
and also the intellectual basis and foundation to make the discoveries 
necessary.
  That is where America has been for the last 50 years. It has ridden 
out on the point of scientific discovery, of the discovery of 
knowledge, the acquisition of knowledge, and in the resulting 
innovation, in the resulting economic growth and the world leadership 
in those areas. It has served this country well. It has made it the 
richest country in the world. It has made it the strongest country in 
the world because of that innovation, because of that scientific 
discovery.
  Some of that was done through the National Science Foundations. Some 
of that was done through the National Institutes of Health, the 
National Institutes of Medicine, in conjunction with other research 
facilities and with the private sector.
  It was very interesting as the Democrats started to consider the need 
for reinvestment in America's innovation infrastructure; and we thought 
about what would it mean at this time to push ahead for the next 
generation of innovation, the next generation of innovators, the next 
generation of manufacturing jobs in this country, the next generation 
of other jobs in this country and the economic growth that could 
continue to drive the American standard of living for America's 
families.
  As we talked to those who had been so very successful in the world of 
technology and biotechnology and venture capitalists who have gone 
forth to try and fund these bright young people and their ideas, those 
people who today are the CEOs and the presidents and the founders of 
some of the most successful companies in the history of the world, 
American companies in the technology field and the biotech field, it is 
interesting that all of them fully understood that they were the 
inheritors, they were the inheritors of that public-private 
partnership, of that investment that was made in the scientific 
discovery, that investment that was made in new young mathematicians 
and scientists and engineers; the fact that this country decided that 
it was important enough for our national security, for our economic 
security, that we would fully pay people's way with fellowships so they 
could spend their full time in the quest of that new knowledge, those 
skills, those talents, and achieved their Ph.D.s and other advanced 
degrees in math, science, and engineering.
  All of these people today recognize that when they were starting 
their companies in the garages of California, in the small business 
parks of New Jersey, in the small business parks and the university 
research labs across this country, they were the inheritors of that 
investment made by this Nation.
  They also told us in these meetings that they felt in that public-
private partnership the public side had been lagging, the public side 
had not been keeping up with the kind of investments that were going to 
be necessary if we in fact were going to have long-term, high-risk, 
high-reward research taking place in this country, the kind of research 
that does lead you to the next generation of innovation, to the next 
generation of jobs and economic growth and world leadership, that we 
need to reinvest in that.
  They talked about how we doubled and this Congress made a decision on 
a

[[Page H313]]

bipartisan basis to double the budget of NIH. But they also made it 
clear that the doubling of the budget wasn't simply a one-time target; 
it was the beginning of the process at the National Institutes of 
Health, at the National Institutes of Medicine.
  They also noted when we decided to double the budgets at the National 
Institutes of Health, we did it at a cost to the physical sciences, 
that the physical sciences also had been lagging. It is interesting we 
see after now having achieved the bipartisan goal of doubling the 
budget of the National Institutes of Health, we see in the President's 
most recent submission a diminishment, a cutting of that budget of the 
National Institutes of Health while the President is talking about 
increasing the physical sciences, the budgets of the National Science 
Foundation and the other governmental research.
  This cannot be a rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul effort. It cannot be that. 
This cannot be done by robbing the physical sciences to help the life 
sciences or robbing the life sciences to help the physical sciences. A 
great country must make advances in scientific discovery in all of 
these fields; and clearly, clearly, that needs to be done if we are 
going to attract private capital to partner up with the Federal dollars 
in the basic researches across the agencies of this country.
  We also talked with them about what would be the driver of much of 
the new innovation, what would give them a task which would generate 
new scientific discovery and innovation; and many of them said we have 
got to deal with the energy problem in this country. The technology is 
a big part of America becoming more energy independent and trying to 
achieve a sense of energy independence over the next 10 years in 
alternative fuels, in alternative technologies, in alternative energy 
sources, rather than simply relying on the fossil fuel policy of the 
current administration and the current budget of this country. Those 
kinds of investments in energy.
  They also thought we should try to recreate a long-term, high-risk, 
high-reward research facility within the Department of Energy so people 
could go out on the edge again of the kind of knowledge that had to be 
acquired if we are going to achieve the goal of energy independence. 
But, once again, you don't do it on a nickel-and-dime policy. You have 
to make a sustained major commitment.
  When you double the budget of the National Institutes of Health and 
you are looking for the kind of research that is so critical to 
preventative medicine, to dealing with the new communicable diseases 
that are traveling around the world and the health care of this 
country, you have to make a sustained investment. If you are going to 
do it in the physical sciences, you have to make a sustained 
investment.
  So that is what my colleagues and I would like to talk about, how 
America turns to the next generation and provides them the promise and 
investment in their talents, their skills, and their future. We think 
we can do that by looking at what has led to this American model of 
success.
  We will also talk about the fact that this model is under challenge 
from countries in Asia, from India, from China, from Korea, from Japan, 
from Taiwan; that the idea that America is number one, the position we 
hold in the world today, in innovation, in Nobel prizes, in patents 
issued and copyrights, that that is not a position that is ours by 
birthright. It came because of the investment and the hard work.
  That is now being challenged from all across the world. People are 
now able to take the American model and leapfrog it because of the 
technologies, because of the scientific discovery that we have made.
  I see one of my colleagues from New Jersey, Mr. Rush Holt, who 
participated in the drafting of the innovation agenda for the 
Democratic Caucus, an agenda that has received wide acclaim from the 
private sector in terms of our ability to go forward again on a new and 
higher level of sustained effort at scientific discovery and innovation 
and economic growth.
  I am delighted to the yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  When we held our meetings around the country with entrepreneurs, with 
business leaders, with scientists, with researchers, we found much to 
be optimistic about. We are in many ways still the powerhouse for new 
ideas, for innovation; but the indications are all pointing in the 
wrong direction.
  You do not have to look very far in my district, and I am sure in 
yours and just about every district in the country, to find people who 
are worried about outsourcing. Jobs, indeed, are going overseas, the 
kinds of jobs we would like to keep here.
  You can go to almost any university, and you will find that what used 
to be the destination of choice for bright students around the world, 
they wanted to study in the United States, it is not so true any more. 
Yes, we have good universities, but the signs are pointing in the wrong 
direction.
  What was known over the centuries as good old American know-how, 
where really every American, every shopkeeper, every farmer, every 
manufacturer was something of a scientist, they took their education 
seriously, well, the signs are pointing in the wrong direction now.
  Our kids are not competing as well in international comparisons. The 
President stood in this Chamber a couple of weeks ago and said it is 
time to make a commitment to research and development, to science 
education. Then a few days later he presented the budget. In real 
terms, the Federal R&D portfolio, research and development spending, 
will decline under the President's budget.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. If the gentleman will yield on that 
point, the gentleman was part of this and we traveled to North Carolina 
and to New Jersey and to Boston and to California and Seattle talking 
to people about this innovation agenda; and when we put the innovation 
agenda together, so many CEOs and venture capitalists and others said 
this is it, you are exactly on the right track, this is what America 
needs.
  It was interesting to see the President come forward in the State of 
the Union as you mentioned and embrace the innovation agenda, many 
components of this effort. Then it was so disappointing to see the 
budget that was published afterwards, and even more disappointing when 
the Republican leadership slammed this innovation agenda as just simply 
more spending, when in fact the President mirrored what was in our 
agenda right down to switch fuels.
  Mr. HOLT. That is right. The President embraced much of this. This 
need not be, should not be, a partisan matter. We are presenting 
tonight something we call the Democratic Innovative Agenda. It doesn't 
have to be the Democratic Innovative Agenda. We are presenting it 
because for 5 years it hasn't been presented. It is because these 
things need to be done. These entrepreneurs, these venture capitalists, 
these researchers that we have been meeting with said, please do it; it 
is not getting done.
  So we are presenting it, and I guess I would even challenge the 
majority to take this issue away from us if they only would. But in 
fact we have the budget in front of us. The President's budget, as I 
say, not only reduces research and development spending in total, the 
NIH budget in real terms will decline for the third year in a row, and 
math-science partnerships at the National Science Foundation zeroed, 
zeroed out.
  How in the world are we going to grow the kind of innovative economy 
that we want, that we need, that we used to have, if we are cutting the 
National Science Foundation?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. If the gentleman will yield for a moment, I want to 
welcome Congressman Miller and Congressman Holt to the 30-Something 
Group. The two of you have created, of course, a new definition of the 
30-Something Group, but we will let that pass for the moment.

                              {time}  2045

  I think it is important to frame the issue that we have, you or 
Congressman Miller, detail for those of us here and those who are 
watching the international comparisons that you have expressed a 
concern about. Because I think we all hear terms like the global 
village and the global economy, and I think we recognize that that is 
the reality. But I know I hear figures, for example, where China is 
going to graduate a multiple of four or five times

[[Page H314]]

what this country will do in terms of students that have majored in the 
sciences and math.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I just want to show you the graph that we have 
here. I would like to welcome all the gray hairs to the 30-Something 
group. And you, obviously, Mr. Delahunt, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, has been here for a while, so your gray hair is--
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Really dark.
  Mr. HOLT. The rest of us have been here for a while.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. You brought up the issue of global standards, and 
this is a chart that illustrates what you were talking about.
  This is the students who will graduate with engineering degrees this 
year. In China, 600,000; India, 350,000; and the U.S., 70,000; and a 
good portion of the U.S. graduates will be foreign born who will 
probably return to one of these countries but fits under the U.S. 
statistics.
  How are we going to possibly try to jump start our economy if we are 
not going to address this issue? Under our innovation proposal we are 
saying we want to create 100,000 new engineers and scientists in the 
next 4 years. We are limited to what we can do because this President 
and the Republican House and the Republican Senate have run up such 
tremendous budget deficit that we have to pay down. When we get in 
charge we will have to pay down the debt for a while and reduce the 
deficit, but we are focused and we have a way to pay for this 100,000 
new engineers and scientists in the next 4 years.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I think these are the points we have to stress is that 
the trends, as you allude to, are running in the wrong direction; and I 
guess if we do not jump start with this initiative and work with our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we are going to suffer. The 
future of the 30-something generation is at risk here.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Congressman Holt, I just want to tell you real 
quick, you said that you hope the majority highjacks this issue which 
the President tried to do during his State of the Union, but his budget 
does not speak to that, Mr. Miller. His budget does not speak to 
innovation. He is saying one thing, and he is going in another 
direction. Because for him to cut student aid to students to even start 
the whole innovation moment, education is the way Americans have 
bettered themselves. Individuals have gone to college for the first 
time. Communities are better because of it.
  Now this President wants to come and he says the word ``innovation'' 
that means that we are heading in that direction. It does not 
necessarily mean that.
  So I believe, unlike what they have done in other areas, we have talk 
about homeland security and international strategy. They highjacked it 
and said it was theirs. The President was against it for many weeks and 
months. He finally saw it our way because our way was the American 
people's way.
  The same thing happened with the whole issue when it came down to the 
9/11 Commission. We said there should be a comprehensive review on what 
happened during 9/11. They tried to put together these little partisan 
committees. The American people said they wanted it. Thank God for the 
survivors of 9/11 and the families that lost loved ones in 9/11. The 
President was against it. The majority side was against it. The 
Republicans, finally, they said, oh, we should have a 9/11 Commission. 
What a great idea.
  But this issue as it relates to innovation and investing in America, 
I do not think they are going to come with us.
  Mr. HOLT. If the gentleman would yield, I am sure he understands that 
when I invite the other side to seize this issue, I do not mean with 
just rhetoric. We as a country need an investment in education, an 
investment in research, an investment in innovation. And the irony is 
our colleagues were on the floor a few minutes ago talking about how 
the economy is going to grow.
  I will tell you if the economy grows it will be because of 
productivity growth resulting from investment in a smart, well-trained 
workforce and in new ideas; and that means really putting something up 
more than rhetoric.
  In math and science education, which are critical to this, the 
President with all of the rhetoric and the other side here with all of 
the rhetoric are now funding teacher professional development for math 
and science teaching at less in actual dollars, I do not mean in 
inflation adjusted dollars, less than it was be funded when the 
President took office 5 years ago. We have lost ground in actual 
dollars, not even counting the purchase power.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I want to make a distinction here. This President 
finds the time and the energy and the commitment to put $16 billion in 
corporate welfare into the energy bill, finds the time and the energy 
and the commitment to put billions upon billions of dollars in the 
Medicare prescription drug bill that is going to some of the most 
profitable industries in the country, including the pharmaceutical 
industry. So the fact of the matter is we have got a President who is 
committed as he could possibly be to corporate welfare for the most 
profitable industries in the country, but yet we just want to train 
math and science teachers. We just want to create 100,000 new engineers 
and scientists, Mr. President. That is all we want to do, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. And we want to fully fund, if the gentleman would 
yield, we want to fully fund the landmark legislation that was passed 
in a bipartisan way under the leadership of Mr. Miller and others and 
Republicans that was described as the No Child Left Behind Act.
  What has happened to that, Mr. Miller?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. What has happened to that is we made 
a promise to the country. We put it out in the bill. We negotiated with 
the President of the United States. And now what we find is in this 
budget the President is about $55 billion behind where he promised the 
country he would be on the funding of No Child Left Behind.
  What is interesting is, while the President is creating those 
deficits in education funding, the private sector is telling us one of 
the key items in terms of economic growth in this country is to fully 
fund No Child Left Behind. They are not telling us, the Federal 
Government, to create 100,000 new scientists. They are saying we want 
to partner with you. We will employ these people in internships in 
summer jobs, in graduate jobs, full-time jobs. We want to work with you 
because it is so critical to the future growth of our companies.
  These are some of the most successful companies in the history of the 
world. They are worried about whether or not America will be able to 
generate the workforce necessary so they can continue to do business in 
this country and we can have jobs in this country.
  And what happens? The President says he wants to do it in the State 
of the Union. It is not in this budget, and the new majority leader 
slams the program as simply more spending. This was not our agenda. 
This was not partisan. We specifically laid this out as a challenge to 
this Congress, to 435 Members of Congress to take up what the private 
sector now has been telling them for years to do with the permanent 
extension of modernization of the R&D tax credits, the full funding of 
No Child Left Behind, the doubling of the National Science Foundation, 
maintaining the doubling of the National Institute of Health, to get 
broadband across this country so that economic growth can take place 
all over the country in the rural areas, people can start jobs, and 
education can be brought there.
  And what do we find out? You just get a big partisan slam from the 
Republican side of the aisle. Most of the CEOs who helped us draft this 
program and consulted with us in Boston and in California and in Austin 
and in North Carolina are Republicans. But they can see the challenge 
of what China and India that Mr. Ryan just talked about. The trend line 
for American scientists and engineers is going down; in our most fierce 
competitors it is soaring up.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Can I suggest that what we will see with that trend 
line in terms of the increase of the number of scientists and 
mathematicians and computer personnel is those jobs, those well-paying 
jobs will also trend towards China and India and OPEC and all those 
countries that we are borrowing from today. And we discussed this last 
night, that we have borrowed from that, are funding those tax cuts that 
translate into 1 percent of Americans, the most affluent, receiving 40

[[Page H315]]

percent of the benefits. We are putting ourselves on a trajectory that 
will put America permanently behind.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. And that is what this is about. We 
have lost a huge number of manufacturing jobs overseas. We have lost 
other jobs overseas. This is a fight and a struggle to make sure that 
there will be new jobs created in America. I think it is called the 
Advanced Manufacturing Association, many people out of the Midwest, in 
Mr. Ryan's area who are worried about the next generation of 
manufacturing in this country. That is going to come through scientific 
discovery and innovation, and that is what we are trying to promote 
here, and what you get from the Republicans is ``we are not going 
there.''
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Miller, the real issue here is that Mr. Holt 
talks about the good old American spirit and being able to say that we 
want to conquer, we want to move forward with innovation.
  You talk about the support, your support of No Child Left Behind; 
and, as you know, many States, Republican governors and Democratic 
governors have sued the U.S. government on the underfunding of No Child 
Left Behind.
  I just want to make sure and our good friend, Mr. Jay Inslee is here, 
and I am willing to give up the podium because he has been working on 
this issue. But for a very long time, Mr. Holt, Mr. Miller and others, 
you have been a part of putting together this innovation agenda that we 
have, printed well before the President's State of the Union as he 
comes up to say words of quote/unquote wisdom and encouragement, but at 
the same time put action behind it.
  We have put action behind it. We as House Democrats have asked the 
majority to be a part of this experience of innovation. You are 
challenging the majority. But I am telling you, Mr. Holt, I kind of 
know these folks right now. I kind of know they say one thing and they 
do another. And the issues that Mr. Ryan pointed out is the fact that 
it is not attractive to them for them to go out of their way to do what 
they need to do on behalf of their constituents and also on behalf of 
the American people.
  And I urge the majority, I challenge the majority to go on the 
HouseDemocrats.gov, get a copy of our innovation agenda that talks 
about how we can put this country on the right track, not in a matter 
of 20 or 40 or something years but right now. We can start right now 
with that investment.
  So I want to thank Mr. Miller and yourself and others who spent a lot 
of time to put this together, not to just keep the printer in business 
but to make sure that we can do the things that we need to do on behalf 
of the American people.
  Mr. HOLT. If the gentleman would yield, he is absolutely right to use 
the word ``investment.'' That is where the growth comes from, and it is 
probably worth taking a moment to talk about the difference between 
authorization and appropriation.
  Authorization is what the Congress says we need to do for the coming 
years. Appropriations is whether you are going to put some meat behind 
it.
  Rhetoric is cheap.
  The National Science Foundation was supposed to be, according to the 
majority, on a doubling path. It is not. As I just told you, it is 
actually decreasing.
  No Child Left Behind, as Mr. Miller pointed out, is $55 billion 
behind what was authorized, in other words, what was determined to be 
necessary to carry it out.
  Now, let me put this in terms of a typical classroom has been 
shortchanged about $25,000. Now, ask a teacher what she or he could do 
over the last few years with an extra $25,000 for teacher training, for 
special programs, for technology, for what it takes to have what we 
have demanded through No Child Left Behind.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the 
balance of my time.

                          ____________________