[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.
____________________