Senators Lieberman and Bingaman on Federal Support of Research

The following are selections from the remarks of Senators Joseph Lieberman (D-Connecticut) and Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico) accompanying the introduction of S. 1305, the National Research Investment Act of 1998.

SENATOR LIEBERMAN:

“Mr. President, the National Research Investment Act of 1998, which Senator Gramm and I introduced this morning, is important legislation designed to reverse a downward trend in the Federal Government’s allocation to science and engineering research. Although America currently enjoys a vibrant economy, with robust growth of over 4 percent and record low unemployment, we should pause for a moment to examine reasons which underlie our current prosperity.

“In one of the few models agreed upon by a vast majority of economists, Dr. Robert Solow won the Nobel Prize for demonstrating that at least half of the total growth in the U.S. economy since the end of World War II is attributable to scientific and technological innovation. In other words, money spent to increase scientific and engineering knowledge represents an investment which pays rich dividends for America’s future.”

"...Publicly funded science has shown to be surprisingly important to the innovation system. A new study prepared for the National Science Foundation found that 73 percent of the main science papers cited by American industrial patents in two recent years were based on domestic and foreign research financed by governments or nonprofit agencies.”

“Yet, despite the demonstrated importance of publicly funded scientific research, the amount spent on science and engineering by the Federal Government is declining. Senator Gramm has already noted that in 1965, 5.7 percent of the Federal budget was spent on nondefense research and development. Thirty-two years later, that figure has dropped by two-thirds to 1.9 percent.’ If you believe as I do, that our current prosperity, intellectual leadership in science and medicine and the growth of entire new industries are directly linked to investments made 30 years ago, then you have got to ask where will this country be 30 years from now?

“At the same time, it is likely that several countries, particularly in Asia, will exceed on a per capita basis, the U.S. expenditure in science. Japan is already spending more than we are in absolute dollars on nondefense research and development. This is an historic reversal. Germany, Singapore, Taiwan, China, South Korea, and India are aggressively promoting R&D investment. These facts led Erich Bloch, the former head of the National Science Foundation, to write that the whole U.S. R&D system is in the midst of a crucial transition. Its rate of growth has leveled off and could decline. We cannot assume that we will stay at the forefront of science and technology as we have for 50 years.’”

“Although difficult, the partisan conflicts and rifts of the past several years may have performed a useful service in clarifying the debate over when public funding on research is justified. Senator Gramm and I have discussed this topic at some length. We believe it is a mistake to separate research into two warring camps, one flying the flag of basic science and the other applied science. Rather the research enterprise represents a broad spectrum of human activity with basic and applied science at either end but not in opposition. Every component along the spectrum produces returns -- economic, social, and intellectual gains for the society as a whole. The Federal Government should patiently invest in science, medicine, and engineering that lies within the public domain. Once an industry or company begins to pursue proprietary research, then support for that particular venture is best left to the private sector. This is what we mean by the term precompetitive research.’”

“In a Wall Street Journal survey of leading economists published in March, 43 percent cited investments in education and research and development as the Federal action that would have the most positive impact on our economy. No other factors, including reducing Government spending or lowering taxes, scored more than 10 percent. While Senator Gramm and I are certainly committed to fiscal responsibility and balancing the budget, we think that the country would be best served by promoting investments in education and R&D and reducing entitlement consumption spending. Failure to do so now may well imperil America’s future economic vitality and our leadership in science and technology.”

SENATOR BINGAMAN:

“Boosting the strength of our R&D infrastructure is crucially important to the future health and prosperity of every inhabitant of my home State of New Mexico, just as it is to every American. The scientific, technical, and medical advances of the past 40 years have dramatically improved our standard of living. If we are to maintain these advances into the future, we cannot afford to stand still.

“Unfortunately, we are now headed in the wrong direction. Federal funding for research and development has declined as an overall percentage of the Federal budget over the last 20 years. We now spend less than 2 cents of each dollar of Federal spending on science and engineering research and development. We need to do better. It is clear that if we want to create the kind of high-paying, high-technology jobs that will ensure a decent standard of living for American workers, we will need a much stronger commitment to investing in research and development.

“Although the focus of this bill is ensuring a strong future for civilian R&D, it is important to recognize that the basic science and fundamental technology development supported by the Defense portion of our budget also contributes to our domestic prosperity. For our Nation to remain prosperous into the next century, we need both sources of support for basic science and fundamental technology to remain strong, even in a time of constrained budgets.

“There was a time when our investment in research and development equaled that of the rest of the world combined. But through the years, we have allowed our commitment to slide, and have lost much ground compared to our international competitors. Mr. President, this is not where we want to be, and I hope that the National Research Investment Act of 1998 will put us on the path to a better future.”