[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 87 (Wednesday, May 19, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2752-S2755]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     ENDLESS FRONTIER ACT--Resumed

  Thereupon, the Senate resumed consideration of the bill (S. 1260) to 
establish a new Directorate for Technology and Innovation in the 
National Science Foundation, to establish a regional technology hub 
program, to require a strategy and report on economic security, 
science, research, innovation, manufacturing, and job creation, to 
establish a critical supply chain resiliency program, and for other 
purposes.
  Pending:

       Schumer amendment No. 1502, in the nature of a substitute.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Booker). The Senator from Washington.


                           Amendment No. 1527

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1527.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Ms. Cantwell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1527 to amendment No. 1502.

  The amendment is as follows


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1527

                     (Purpose: To improve the bill)

       On page 304, line 18, strike ``3'' and insert ``4''.

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, we come to the floor today after a lot 
of hard work by the Commerce Committee to pass out the Endless Frontier 
bill last week--24 to 4. I know my colleagues from the committee will 
be out here to speak on this important legislation, as will the 
majority leader, Senator Schumer, who authored this important 
legislation, and our colleague from Indiana, Senator Young. We thank 
them for kick-starting what is a very important national discussion 
about how much we should be investing in research and development or 
what I would say is American ingenuity or, to put it a little more 
simply, I just say American know-how, because we are a nation of people 
who know how to innovate, who know how to use science to transform our 
economy, and we have done it over and over and over again.
  I don't know. Maybe it came with, in getting in a boat and coming all 
the

[[Page S2753]]

way across the ocean, you had to be an adventurer to begin with. If you 
had to settle the frontier, you had to be innovative in your own right. 
If you had to continue to expand our country, you had to have a great 
ability to take risks in order to calculate and move forward.
  Yet, somehow, in the United States of America, we are blessed with 
ingenuity in our DNA. We as a nation are a nation that has figured out 
that if we continue to partner together with those great, creative 
minds, that the investment by both the public sector and the private 
sector and through our universities and now our community colleges and 
now research centers--that we can grow our economy, compete on an 
international level, and protect opportunity for future Americans.
  So it has been many eras of innovation. When I think about it, I 
think about Thomas Edison and the light bulb, I obviously think about 
Henry Ford and automobiles, and in my part of the world, we think about 
Bill Boeing and aviation. Innovation is so much part of our DNA that I 
don't think we sometimes absorb the littler things that we might not 
know about.
  People probably don't know about Nathan Stone Stubblefield, a 
Kentucky inventor who in 1902 demonstrated the first wireless 
transmission of communication using magnets. I know we have a big 
wireless industry today, but people probably don't know that, in 1902, 
a Kentucky inventor basically helped to turn the page on a new 
generation of technology. People probably don't know that a Louisiana 
professor, J. Lawrence Smith, in 1850, invented the microscope. Think 
about how much that led to the important discussions of science and 
healthcare for us as a nation. People probably don't know that, in 
Indiana, a State police officer invented the breathalyzer test, a 
gentleman named Robert Borkenstein, who basically just said, ``We don't 
know what is happening here,'' and he introduced and created the 
breathalyzer test.
  That is what America is. America is the spirit of know-how and 
getting things done.
  In fact, a report read:

       Americans prioritize being a world leader in scientific 
     achievements more than other global [communities].

  That is from the Pew Research Center report by Cary Funk and several 
other authors last September.
  The report goes on to read:

       [S]even in ten Americans believe it is very important for 
     the United States to be a leader in scientific achievements.

  Clearly, what makes us different than other nations is that we are 
willing to put significant American tax dollars on the table to ensure 
that the national investment, the research in science, and the 
development of our ecosystem take place. That investment is matched 
with a good education system, capital formation, and, as I said, 
private sector investments in research and development. All of that has 
continued to make us the world leader in science and technology 
innovation. It also helps us create job growth here at home.
  The question before us today is, How much research and development 
should our government be doing given how important th practical 
sciences and engineering are to the next generation of Americans?

  We are here to discuss this proposal by Senators Schumer and Young, 
who, as I said, have been working on this concept for years because, no 
doubt, we have fallen off the pace--that is to say, the pace of 
scientific research investment at least as a percentage of the GDP.
  Even though President Bush, in his second term, tried to signal the 
importance of this investment, he issued a report basically calling the 
American Competitiveness Initiative the leading world innovation 
agenda. That was in February of 2006.
  In fact, at that time, President Bush said:

       [T]he role of government is not to create wealth; the role 
     of our government is to create an environment in which the 
     entrepreneur can flourish, in which minds can expand, in 
     which technologies can reach new frontiers.

  George Bush had it right. He knew that this competitiveness issue was 
starting to challenge us from a competitive perspective, and he knew 
that we needed to make a bigger investment.
  Unfortunately, with the two attempts that we had--the America 
COMPETES Act in 2007 and the America COMPETES Act in 2010--it really 
was a goal by us to basically double the NSF budget within a 7-year 
window. While we started out in the right direction, we had a huge 
economic downturn, and these goals were not met. If we had kept our 
promises to these science agencies, we would have invested $80 billion 
more in innovation investments over the last 14 years than we have done 
today.
  The challenge that we face now is that, after decades of not living 
up to what had been outlined for America COMPETES, we now know that it 
is an environment in which we are facing much more aggressive 
competition. We have to think about the lack of investment that we did 
not realize in the context of how long it takes to do technology 
breakthroughs.
  Look at just one example, the internet as we know it today. 
Literally, in the 1960s, the ARPANET was first talked about. It took us 
to the 1990s to really, with the University of Illinois and Marc 
Andreessen, to affect what we would later know as hypertext links and a 
browser. Today, what it means to us is more than $2 trillion annually 
to our economy.
  When you think about the investments we are asking our colleagues to 
make today, we have to consider that, in fact, Federal dollars for R&D 
is near its lowest point in 60 years as a percentage of the GDP. I 
can't say that we are going to discover the next internet, but I can 
say that, if we continue to underinvest in this, we will be 
shortchanging generations of innovation.
  There is no doubt that key investments in research and development in 
other parts of the world are certainly getting attention. Since 2000, 
research and development in China has grown by 1,600 percent; in Taiwan 
and Korea by 400 percent; while, in the United States, just by 150 
percent. That is in a 20-year window of looking at this issue.
  Americans believe that competition is good, and we believe that 
competition helps to drive innovation. So you won't find me as one on 
the floor who is obsessed about other nations as much as giving a 
perspective here about what the world market opportunity represents. If 
we are not making the investments here in science and technology and 
innovation, not only are we missing opportunities in our own country, 
we are missing opportunities around the globe. The rest of the Nation, 
in an information age, is not going to sit by idly, so we have to think 
about how we move ahead on critical technology that helps us in all 
sectors of our economy--how it helps us with supply chains and, 
certainly, how it helps us with national security.
  What we are talking about here, with this bill proposed by our 
colleague Leader Schumer and Senator Young, is more than a doubling of 
NSF's budget in 5 years; it is the start of trying to catch up. It is 
also a $17 billion investment in energy innovation--a key sector of our 
economy in which we need to make continued transformation. That 
represents a 28-percent increase in some of the projects from the 
Office of Science and things like ARPA-E that could see investment.
  What we are also investing in, which our colleagues were very adamant 
about and very convincing, is a new tech directorate--that is to say 
that our research is very good with basic and very good with applied 
but that we actually have to get better with the user implementation of 
our science and spur more innovation in a more rapid fashion. So we are 
investing, between this new tech directorate and tech hubs, nearly $39 
billion to help stimulate the faster translation of our advancements 
into real innovation. This is something the committee thought long and 
hard about, and we took testimony from experts who have worked on 
innovation issues for many years.
  In this bill, we also increase the protection of intellectual 
property from our universities.
  We are helping our universities do better tech transfer but also 
protect their intellectual property. In an information age, when so 
much is published online, if other nations, hungry for development, can 
read our research and act an effect on it because we haven't patented 
it, then we need to do a better job of patenting our innovations and 
helping our universities.

[[Page S2754]]

  Our universities are unbelievable research institutions, and helping 
them spend more time on tech transfer is something that we have done in 
the Pacific Northwest. A new program ushered in there literally led to 
20 startups from research that had been done but just hadn't been 
translated into new areas.
  We also are trying to help get more regional diversity to our 
research and investment dollars. There are about 25 States in our 
Nation that previously qualified for a program that says they should 
get a share of research dollars. This legislation says all the money 
being spent here, 20 percent of it should go to that, what is called 
EPSCoR efforts, which is expanding research and development into those 
States.
  And for the first time, we will have over at NSF an office of 
diversity--an office to focus on the lack of women and minorities in 
science and to make real progress on this issue.
  People see the chart behind me, and, yes, it is no mistake, the 
picture we picked.
  The point here is that we know from NSF's own research that we can't 
be passive about this. Literally, the University of Washington got an 
NSF grant that helped them study why we are not making more progress 
with women and minorities in science and innovation, and they came back 
with: It can't be passive. You can't just put dollars on the table for 
STEM. You can't just put a few programs in place. It has to be an 
active approach to changing many aspects to the way we educate in 
science.
  I am very proud of the University of Washington on this point because 
they made changes, and now of those who are teaching in what are 
considered STEM sciences at the University of Washington, 70 percent of 
them are women or people of color. So we have changed what the face of 
teaching science looks like at the University of Washington, and now we 
have to change some of the criteria and curriculum so that we can 
continue to attract more people. This bill is a very good step in that 
direction.
  So what are we trying to achieve? We are trying to achieve what NSF 
Director Panchanathan is saying. He is saying that we need, in this 
next decade and in decades to come, innovation everywhere, tied to 
opportunity everywhere, tied to our universities. That is what we are 
trying to do in advancing this legislation.
  We processed over 100 amendments in committee and a broad range of 
input from our colleagues. We will, I am sure, here in regular order 
process many more, but, hopefully, these amendments and more of the 
substance of this underlying bill we will go into in detail. We have to 
remember what our goals are with this investment--to stay competitive, 
to create future jobs, to help our economy by unleashing innovation, to 
protect our national security, and do what Americans know how to do 
best--that is, use that ingenuity to help create a better future.
  I will see if my colleagues want to speak, but we will be coming back 
to expand on many other layers of this legislation. We will be back to 
talk about semiconductors. We will be back to talk about the new tech 
directorate. We will be back to talk about NASA funding. We will be 
back.
  And that reminds me. If anybody at home is saying, ``Well, you know, 
OK, that was interesting; I don't really know about this; what is 
American innovation?'' just go and Google two things. You can either 
look at SpaceX rocket return, which they did in 2015, or Blue Origin. 
In both of those--the New Shepherd and the Falcon, two different 
approaches--there are literally engineers who said: If we are going to 
go to space, if we are going to go to the Moon, if we are going back to 
the Moon and go to Mars, we need to figure out how to have returnable 
rockets.
  Just go Google those two clips, and you will see alive and well the 
spirit of American ingenuity when those engineers see that rocket 
returning from outer space and reland because they have pulled off an 
incredible achievement. You will see jubilant joy and excitement over 
that accomplishment.
  I guarantee you, we will not see everything that this bill will 
unleash, but I guarantee you it will unleash things that will deliver 
that kind of excitement for Americans in the future, and we will have 
to be very thankful that this Congress set the record straight on the 
level of investment we need to achieve to keep us competitive.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, the 21st century will be shaped by the 
outcome of the strategic competition between the United States and 
China. Like our Nation's previous contest with the Soviet Union, the 
outcome of this great contest will help determine the world that our 
children and our grandchildren live in.
  There are only two real possibilities: Either the United States will 
remain the preeminent global superpower or we will be replaced by 
China. This truth is recognized on both sides of the aisle in this 
body. The contest between our two countries will involve every aspect 
of national life--including military might, diplomatic skill, economic 
strength, and the deepest values that shape our societies.
  The scope and complexity of this challenge calls for bold action, and 
that is what the Endless Frontier Act is about. This week the Senate 
has an opportunity to come together on a bipartisan basis and move 
forward on legislation, now known as the United States Innovation and 
Competition Act. This will make our Nation more economically 
competitive, improve protections for U.S. intellectual property and 
research, and keep us a step ahead of China in this area of high-stakes 
competition.
  This bill does so by increasing research at the National Science 
Foundation and dramatically increasing R&D at a new National Science 
Foundation directorate. Other Agencies in the Federal Government will 
also see dramatic increases in the important research that they 
perform.
  The Endless Frontier Act, as reported by the Commerce Committee, is a 
major part of this comprehensive legislative effort. Other committees 
have also been important partners in this legislation. In particular, I 
congratulate Chairman Menendez and Ranking Member Risch of the Foreign 
Relations Committee for producing the Strategic Competition Act, which 
was reported out of their committee on a 21-to-1 vote.
  I also commend Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairman 
Peters and Ranking Member Portman; Banking Committee Chairman Brown and 
Ranking Member Toomey; Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee 
Chair Murray and Ranking Member Burr; and Judiciary Chair Durbin and 
Ranking Member Grassley for their importan contributions to the 
substitute product.

  I will focus my remarks on the Commerce Committee's contributions to 
the Endless Frontier Act. Last week, the Commerce Committee held a 
markup to consider this legislation. We considered hundreds of 
amendments and adopted over 100 of them into the reported bill, 
including over 20 bipartisan, separately introduced bills. The markup 
at times was challenging, but in the end the bill passed the committee 
on a bipartisan 24-to-4 vote.
  The Endless Frontier Act will enhance U.S. science and technology 
leadership through key investments in R&D, regional economic 
development, and manufacturing.
  The bill will accomplish these goals in the following ways: First, it 
will preserve the core basic research mission of the National Science 
Foundation. The NSF is the world's gold standard for funding basic 
research, a sector that fuels new waves of innovation across our 
society. Basic research answers the fundamental questions of scientific 
inquiry needed to develop major innovations. The internet, GPS, cell 
phones, and many other breakthrough technologies have their origins in 
National Science Foundation-funded research. The Endless Frontier Act 
will authorize funding increases in NSF's core science portfolio to 
support the most promising research proposals. That is the first thing.
  Secondly, this bill will establish a new Directorate of Technology 
and Innovation at the NSF to drive faster innovation in key technology 
focus areas, such as artificial intelligence, or AI, and robotics. We 
included strong coordination measures to ensure that programs at the 
new Technology Directorate do not duplicate R&D programs of other 
Federal Agencies, such as the Department of Energy. These provisions 
are designed to ensure the wise

[[Page S2755]]

expenditure of taxpayer dollars by preventing bureaucratic turf wars, 
which can slow down innovation.
  Third, this legislation will protect intellectual property and 
research from foreign governments--most notably, China. The Endless 
Frontier Act will establish a research security office at the NSF and 
create a clearinghouse to share information about security risks. It 
also puts forward policies to protect controlled information, including 
a plan for background checks on researchers.
  In addition, it will take critical steps to guard against Chinese 
intellectual property theft by prohibiting NSF funds from going to 
researchers who are part of a Chinese talent program or an institution 
with formal ties to a Confucius Institute. This is a new and important 
step.
  Fourth, this bill will reduce the geographic concentration of R&D in 
a handful of States and universities. Put simply, this bill will be a 
game changer for the R&D geographic diversity that many of us have 
sought for years, if not decades. America can maintain our leadership 
over China only with a sustained effort that is national in scope. We 
should tap into the wide-ranging talents, expertise, and capabilities 
of Americans across this land, including Nevada and Mississippi.
  The Endless Frontier Act will help address these long-standing 
disparities by increasing funding for the Established Program to 
Stimulate Competitive Research, which we have all come to know as 
EPSCoR. Participation in EPSCoR helps institutions in many States and 
Territories improve their research capacities and, therefore, compete 
more effectively for Federal R&D funding. The legislation also invests 
in minority serving institutions and builds up research capacity in 
emerging institutions, which have traditionally received a relatively 
small share of Federal research dollars.
  No. 5, this bill will boost regional economic development through the 
Regional Technology Hub Program.
  No. 6, it will support manufacturing programs, in part, by 
quadrupling the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program, which 
already exists.
  No. 7, it will help America win the ``New Space Race'' against China 
by including the NASA Authorization Act, which the Senate passed 
unanimously last year. The NASA bill allows Congress to set priorities 
and guardrails for the space Agency's exploration and research 
programs.
  No. 8, this bill will authorize a number of telecommunication 
programs to improve our telecom workforce and help get all Americans 
connected to high-speed and reliable broadband.
  This bill also includes several bills that I have championed, 
including the Rural STEM Education Act, the Advanced Technological 
Manufacturing Act, the Improving Minority Participation and Careers in 
Telecommunications Act, and the Telecommunications Supply Chain 
Diversity Promotion Act--significant legislation and a mouthful, too.
  Overall, this is a strong bill, but it can be made better. As I 
mentioned at the Commerce Committee's markup last week, although the 
bill reported out of the committee makes important changes to the 
underlying bill, I regret the rushed process that was followed.
  The underlying bill was introduced on April 20, just under a month 
ago. Only yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Schumer laid down a 1,400-
page substitute that not only includes the Endless Frontier Act, but 
major legislation from the Foreign Relations, Homeland Security, 
Banking, HELP, and Judiciary Committees. Now known as the U.S. 
Innovation and Competition Act--USICA, I suppose--this legislation will 
make significant changes to our innovation ecosystem and the missions 
of our Federal Agencies.
  A bill of this magnitude would normally take a year to write and 
involve soliciting input from Members and stakeholders across our 
country to craft a consensus package. Clearly, the Senate should 
consider this bill with an open amendment process.
  Prematurely shutting down debate on amendments without this open 
process would send a false signal to China and the American people that 
we are divided in an area where, actually, we are united and together.
  And then, when all is said and done, the effort will have to be paid 
for and will be subject to appropriations.
  I hope the majority's determination to rush this legislation through 
the Senate is not designed to use a partisan reconciliation bill to 
appropriate funding for these important initiatives. Science has always 
been debated in a bipartisan way in this body. Leaving one party on the 
sidelines in the appropriation process, which I hope will not happen, 
would have a detrimental consequences for the long-term stability of 
this legislation.
  So on the whole, I am positive and optimistic about this bill and 
about the process that will get us to the end of both parties' desire.
  I thank my colleague, Senator Cantwell, for her work as chair of the 
Commerce Committee to get this bill on the floor today, and I look 
forward to working with her to improve the bill in the next step in the 
process--an open amendment process

                          ____________________