[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 4]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 5827-5828]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



           INTRODUCTION OF THE NSF AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, April 4, 2001

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today, I am 
introducing a bill to authorize funding for the National Science 
Foundation (NSF) for the next four fiscal years. The bill provides for 
increases of 15% for each year, which together with the 13% 
appropriations increase for fiscal year 2001, will result in a doubling 
of NSF's budget by the fourth year of the bill.
  The need for this legislative proposal to provide a substantial 
funding increase for NSF is beyond doubt, and the case supporting this 
bill can be simply stated:
  Federally supported basic research is fundamental to the nation's 
economic health;
  NSF plays a vital role in support of basic research and education 
across all fields of science and engineering; and
  There is ample evidence that the current level of federal research 
investment is inadequate, particularly for the physical sciences, 
mathematics, and engineering.
  The connection between research funding and the strength of the 
economy has been expounded by such diverse sources as former 
presidential science advisor Allen Bromley, Federal Reserve Chairman 
Alan Greenspan, former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, and the 
Hart-Rudman Commission on National Security.
  Dr. Bromley, who was former President Bush's science advisor from 
1989-1993, commented on the inadequacy of the research and development 
portion of the Administration's FY 2002 funding request in a March 9 
New York Times op-ed. He pointed out the potential damage of proposed 
budget cuts for NSF, NASA and the Department of Energy agencies, which 
he characterized as the three primary sources of ideas and personnel in 
the high-tech economy. His key point was that the future budget 
surpluses on which the large proposed tax cut depends are tied to 
research investments made today. He said:

       The proposed cuts to scientific research are a self-
     defeating policy. Congress must increase the federal 
     investment in science. No science, no surplus. It's that 
     simple.

  The importance of research to the economy was stressed by Federal 
Reserve Chairman Greenspan in recent testimony before the House Budget 
Committee also. In response to a question on the need for government 
support for research, Greenspan responded,

       On the issue of research, there is just no question that if 
     you're going to have technology as the base of your economy, 
     which we do, research is crucial. If we don't [enhance the 
     incentives to do research in this economy], we're going to 
     find that we are in a position where we may have awesome 
     technologies, but if you don't continuously nurture them, 
     they won't continue to exist.

  The recent report of the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st 
Century, known as the Hart-Rudman Commission, makes a strong case for 
the importance of funding for basic research and technology 
development. The Commission found that, ``it is from investment in 
basic science that the most valuable long-run dividends are realized'' 
and ``[the federal] role remains not least because our basic and 
applied research efforts in areas of critical national interest will 
not be pursued by a civil sector that emphasizes short- to mid-term 
return on investment.'' On the basis of its findings, the Commission 
recommends a doubling of all federal funding for science and technology 
research and development by 2010.
  In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on the Hart-
Rudman Commission report, former Speaker Gingrich stated that,

       The revolution in science requires larger investments in 
     basic research; we are not getting the money today.

  He also pointed out the importance of NSF's support for basic science 
research.
  I agree with Mr. Gingrich on the key role NSF plays in sustaining the 
nation's research enterprise. NSF-supported researchers have collected 
100 Nobel Prizes over the years. They have received recognition for 
work in the fields of physics, chemistry, physiology and

[[Page 5828]]

medicine, and economics. In nearly every field of science and 
engineering are examples of NSF-sponsored research that led to 
important discoveries and applications:
  NSF-funded research in atmospheric chemistry identified ozone 
depletion over the Antarctic, or the ``ozone hole'' as it has come to 
be known. In 1986, NSF researchers established chlorofluorocarbons as 
the probable cause of the Antarctic ozone hole. Since CFCs are used in 
many commercial applications, this discovery has driven a search for 
benign substitutes and also led to regulation of CFC emissions.
  When most people think of the Internet they mean the World Wide Web 
and the Web Browsers, like Netscape, that allow them to find the 
information they seek. The browser made the World Wide Web. The first 
browser of note was Mosaic, and a student working at the National 
Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois 
developed it. This is one of NSF's four original Supercomputing 
Centers.
  In industry, the acronym CAD/CAM brings to mind the best in design 
and manufacturing techniques. NSF-funded research on solid modeling led 
to the widespread use of Computer-Aided Design and Computer-Aided 
Manufacturing. The keys to success were advances in the underlying 
mathematics and in linking the academic and industrial leaders in the 
field.
  NSF's contributions are also manifest through the accomplishments of 
scientists and engineers, who were trained under NSF awards. It is well 
known that the great majority of the seminal work in developing such 
technologies as cell phones, fiber optics, and computer assisted design 
was performed by private industry--at labs like Corning, AT&T, and 
Motorola. A recent NSF sponsored study has shown that many scientists 
and engineers, who went to graduate school on NSF fellowships and 
research assistantships, often played important roles in the 
development of these and other technologies. In a number of cases, they 
became the entrepreneurs who created new firms and markets. To use the 
words of the authors of the study--``NSF emerges consistently as a 
major--often the major, source of support for education and training of 
the Ph.D. scientists and engineers who went on to make major 
contributions. . . .''.
  The resources NSF provides for support of research and education are 
relatively small, but the impact is great. The agency expends only 3.8% 
of federal R&D funds, but provides 23% of basic research funding at 
academic institutions. For specific research areas, the NSF role at 
universities is even larger: it funds 36% of research in the physical 
sciences, 49% in the environmental sciences, 50% in engineering, 72% in 
mathematics, and 78% in computer science. NSF research awards and 
direct research fellowships help train over 24,000 graduate students 
each year, the future scientists and engineers essential to fuel our 
high-tech economy.
  Furthermore, NSF programs help to improve science education for all 
students and to prepare them for citizenship in a world increasingly 
dominated by technology. Today we continue to have manpower shortages 
in many high technology fields. The ideal way to alleviate the 
shortages is by ensuring that children of all races and both genders 
receive the basic grounding in science and mathematics that will 
prepare them to pursue careers as scientists, engineers and 
technologists. We cannot allow inadequate funding to cripple NSF's 
efforts in this area.
  There is really no debate on whether support of basic research is an 
appropriate role of the federal government. The basic economic argument 
is well understood. Industry will underinvest in basic research because 
individual companies cannot capture the full benefits of advances in 
fundamental knowledge that come from funding basic research.
  The question, rather, is what ought to be the level of the federal 
research investment? The bill I am introducing takes the position that 
it is too low, particularly for basic research in the fields for which 
NSF is a major funding agency: the physical sciences, mathematics, and 
engineering.
  The National Research Council's Board on Science, Technology and 
Economic Policy analyzed federal funding data for FY 1993 through FY 
1997. They found that support, in constant dollars, for chemical 
engineering had declined by 13%, electrical engineering by 36%, 
mechanical engineering by 50%, physics by 29%, chemistry by 9%, and 
mathematics by 6%. Even including the substantial increases for 
research for biomedical sciences during this period, total federal 
research funding for all fields of science and engineering declined by 
about 1%.
  Inadequacies in the size of NSF's budget are evident from the fact 
that the agency currently funds less than a third of the research 
applications it receives and about half of those judged to be of high 
quality. Even when an applicant receives a NSF award, it is usually 
suboptimal and perhaps half the amount of a NIH award. The current 
situation leaves researchers in NSF-funded fields scrambling for funds 
and spending too much of their time chasing limited funding rather than 
in the laboratory or mentoring students.
  The NSF authorization bill I am introducing will provide increases of 
15% per year for fiscal years 2002 through 2004. The bill will result 
in a NSF budget of $7.7 billion by the final year. The increases 
provided will allow NSF to go forward with substantial new research 
initiatives in the mathematical sciences and the social and behavioral 
sciences and to continue ongoing initiatives in information technology, 
biodiversity, and nanotechnology. Moreover, the budget growth will 
allow NSF to--
  Increase average grant size and duration;
  Fund national research facilities for the earth and atmospheric 
sciences, astronomy, and the computational and information sciences; 
and
  Support large scientific instruments at colleges and universities.
  Finally, the increases will support expansion of NSF's science 
education programs. Of particular importance will be increased efforts 
to improve the skills and content knowledge of K-12 science and math 
teachers and to increase participation in science and engineering by 
traditionally underrepresented groups. The increases will also expand 
education research programs, including quantifying the most effective 
uses of educational technology and strengthening efforts to assess 
education programs to determine and disseminate information about what 
methods and approaches are most effective in improving student 
performance in science and math.
  The Coalition for National Science Funding (CNSF), a group of eighty 
scientific, engineering, and professional societies, universities, and 
corporations has called for providing no less than $5.1 billion, a 15% 
increase, for the NSF in FY 2002 as the next step in doubling the NSF 
budget. CNSF has stated that:

       Our national knowledge base in the sciences, mathematics, 
     and engineering is increasingly important to broad economic 
     and social interests. Doubling the NSF budget by 2006 will 
     fund the crucial investments that the agency makes in key 
     components of this vital knowledge base.

  Mr. Speaker, the NSF Authorization Act of 2001 implements the 
recommendations of CNSF. I hope all my colleagues will join me in 
ensuring that NSF has the necessary resources to carry out its 
essential role in support of scientific and engineering research and 
education by becoming cosponsors and supporters of this authorization 
bill.

                          ____________________