[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 21304-21306]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN THE UNITED STATES AND THE IMPACT IT HAS ON OUR 
                                ECONOMY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Under a previous order of the

[[Page 21305]]

 House, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise and 
discuss the issue of scientific research in the United States and the 
impact that it has on our economy.
  The reason I do this is because there currently is an underfunding of 
scientific research in the budget proposals we have before us and in 
the appropriations bills which we have passed. I would like to review 
why that is dangerous for our Nation and why we must increase our 
spending on scientific research.
  Let me first back up a year or two. A previous speaker, Mr. Gingrich, 
had a keen interest in science and technology and asked the gentleman 
from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner, chairman of the Committee on 
Science, to give me the responsibility of reviewing science and 
technology policy in the United States Government and make 
recommendations for improvement.
  After all, the previous study had been done by Vannevar Bush in 1945 
and, although it was outstanding, it is clearly out of date. There has 
been some excellent science policy work done recently by individuals 
outside of the government, but our government had not done anything 
official in that direction.
  As a result of our work, after holding a considerable number of 
hearings, working hand-in-glove with the Speaker and with the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), we were able to produce a new 
science policy report. It has just come out in paperback, and it has 
been very well received by the scientific community. It makes a number 
of arguments for the importance of scientific research in our Nation 
and explains what we should do in the way of Federal funding. I believe 
the recommendations are well founded and should be followed.
  I would also like to briefly display the number of letters I received 
just in the past few weeks from leaders of scientific associations 
protesting the lack of funding in this year's budget. I have a letter, 
for example, from Jerry Friedman, President of the American Physical 
Society; from the American Association for the Advancement of Science; 
American Association of Engineering Societies; American Astronomical 
Society; American Ceramic Society; American Chemical Society; American 
Electronics Associations, which represents one of the bigger industries 
in our Nation; American Geological Institute; American Institute of 
Biological Sciences, the Chemical Engineers, the Mathematical Society, 
et cetera, all expressing the great concern in the scientific world 
about this particular issue.
  Similarly, there was an op-ed piece in the Washington Post just a 
week ago by Allan Bromley, outstanding physicist and former 
presidential science advisor, who has been a leader in the scientific 
community for many years. The title of his article is No Science and No 
Surplus, and I would like to at this point enter that into the Record.

              [From the Washington Post, August 26, 1999]

                         No Science, No Surplus

                         (By D. Allan Bromley)

       America is on a roll. We're balancing the federal budget, 
     reforming welfare and making retirement secure. Sound like a 
     breakthrough in fiscal management? Not exactly. Our awesome 
     economic success can be traced directly to our past 
     investments in science. The problem is, this year's federal 
     budget for science is a disaster, and it compromises our 
     nation's economic and social progress.
       Here are the latest budget numbers: NASA science is slashed 
     by $678 million; science at the Department of Energy is cut 
     by $116 million; and the National Science Foundation ends up 
     with $275 million less than the president requested. Clearly, 
     Congress has lost sight of the critical role science plays in 
     America.
       Federal investments in science pay off--they produce 
     cutting-edge ideas and a highly skilled work force. The ideas 
     and personnel then feed into high-tech industries to drive 
     the U.S. economy. It's a straightforward relationship: 
     Industry is attentive to immediate market pressures; the 
     federal government makes the venturous investments in 
     university-based research that ensures long-term 
     competitiveness. So far, it's been a powerful tandem.
       Thirty years ago, the laser and fiber optic cable were born 
     from federal investments in university research. Over time, 
     those two discoveries formed the backbone of a multi-billion-
     dollar telecommunications industry.
       The fusion of university research and industrial 
     development now generates about 5,000 new jobs and 
     contributes a quarter-billion dollars in taxes to the federal 
     coffer every day. It accounts for 70 percent of our economic 
     growth. The result is undeniable. The fusion is primarily 
     responsible for our booming economy and our growing federal 
     surplus. So the consequences of a budget cut to science are 
     equally undeniable: no science, no surplus.
       The benefits of the science investment go deeper than just 
     the surplus. Three years ago this month, welfare underwent 
     dramatic reform. No one knew what the fallout from that would 
     be. But the high-tech economy eased the burden. Unemployment 
     was dropping to a 25-year low, and jobs were being created at 
     a record pace. As it turned out, half of those jobs were 
     generated by the high-tech sector.
       The legislative challenge before us is patching up Social 
     Security. Again, we'll rely on the science and technology 
     juggernaut. Whether the solution lies in stimulating private 
     investment or in steady federal surpluses, the proposals all 
     rely on a familiar friend--the strength of our nation's 
     booming economy. And while Congress dithers, the public 
     already is taking steps of its own.
       Americans hold more than $5 trillion in communications and 
     technology stocks. Our mutual funds, our 401K plans and IRAs 
     are stuffed full of high-tech investments. The retirement 
     security of Americans now depends upon the steady flow of 
     innovations from technology companies. In turn, those 
     companies rely on the steady flow of discoveries and trained 
     work force generated by the scientific community. No science, 
     no savings.
       Scientific research at our universities and national labs 
     is now a foundation of the economy and thereby vital to the 
     success of social legislation. But rather than reinforcing 
     the foundation, Congress is eroding it. That action couldn't 
     come at a worse time.
       America's science infrastructure is in decay--aged science 
     buildings on our campuses, dated laboratory equipment, 
     antiquated computers. During the Bush administration, the 
     Office of Science and Technology Policy estimated the cost of 
     rebuilding our science infrastructure at $100 billion. The 
     Clinton administration has done little to address the 
     problem. The budget Congress is proposing guarantees 
     continued decay.
       Congress must significantly increase science funding. 
     Senators recognized the need last week when, with the support 
     of Sens. Trent Lott and Tom Daschle, they passed the Federal 
     Research Investment Act, which calls for doubling the federal 
     investment in science by the year 2010. But appropriators 
     haven't followed through. It's not too late--budgets won't be 
     settled until October.
       For the sake of the country, I hope Congress will recognize 
     the significant role science plays in society. Without 
     science, there won't be a surplus.

  Mr. EHLERS. The key point is this: when we analyze what is causing 
our economic boom of the past few years, the first major cause is 
monetary policy, which has largely been headed by Alan Greenspan; next 
is tax and regulatory policy, where the Republicans in the Congress 
have made tremendous improvements; and the final and very vital cause 
is scientific research. If we analyze the economic development taking 
place today we will find that over half of all economic development is 
directly related to scientific research, whether it is the Internet, 
whether it is medical research, any of the other research projects 
going on.
  Dr. Bromley's thesis is very simple. He says: no science, no surplus. 
Why? Because the economic boom we are enjoying now, which has resulted 
in the first surpluses in the Federal Government since 1969, is to a 
large extent caused by the scientific research that has been done in 
the last 2 to 4 decades. If we do not continue to do that research, we 
are doing a grave disservice to our children and grandchildren, because 
we are condemning them to a United States which will not have as much 
economic growth and which will not have the resources and the surplus 
which will enable them to enjoy a good economy as we enjoy it today.
  Mr. Speaker, I advocate very strongly that we review the 
appropriations bills that have passed the House and are before the 
Senate, and that we make every effort to increase the funding for 
scientific research.
  As it stands now, NASA science is slashed by $678 million; science of 
the Department of Energy is cut by $116 million; and the National 
Science Foundation ends up with $275 million less than requested.
  I think it extremely important that we review these bills and that we 
increase funding for scientific research

[[Page 21306]]

 so that we may continue to enjoy not only the results of the research, 
but also the economic benefits that will arise from the fruits of that 
research. I90[H13SE9-402]{H8139}F

                          ____________________