“Doubling R&D” Bill Gets Senate Hearing

Senator Bill Frist (R-TN), Chairman of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space, held a broad-ranging discussion of federal R&D funding at an April 28 hearing. Much of the attention was devoted to S. 1305, the National Research Investment Act, a bill to double civilian R&D funding over ten years (see FYI #129, 1997 .) Three of the bill’s initial co-sponsors, Senators Phil Gramm (R-TX), Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), and Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), testified on its behalf. Then Acting OSTP Director Kerri-Ann Jones spoke on the Administration’s FY 1999 budget request. The third witness panel was composed of University of Pennsylvania President Judith Rodin; Al Teich, Director of Science and Policy Programs at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS); and Dan Peterson, President of DAP and Associates.

Congress has intended to strongly support civilian R&D over the past decade, Frist said, but the growth in mandatory spending over that time resulted in R&D - and all discretionary funding - declining as a percent of the total budget. The growth of entitlements, he said, was “undermining the intent of Congress...[and] putting the federal investment in R&D at risk.”

As a percent of GDP, federal spending on non-defense R&D has dropped from 5.7 percent in 1965 to 1.9 percent in 1997, Gramm announced. He said his bill represents an opportunity to focus attention on this problem, and build a constituency for support of science. (Over 100 scientific, engineering, and mathematical societies have endorsed the doubling over a decade goal.) Lieberman noted that the national security rationale, a strong driver for R&D during the Cold War, has “lost its power to compel” support for research, and other arguments have been “not sufficient to counteract the overall pressure on discretionary funding.” He called the bill’s doubling goal a “modest approach” and a simple, easily understood message. “It’s not bad policy, either,” he added, “if you want to stabilize and marginally improve investment levels as a percentage of GDP.” Referring to policy-development efforts by the House Science Committee and the Senate Science and Technology Caucus, he said, “I think we have the opportunity to move forward on both the policy and funding questions at the same time.”

While supporting the bill’s general thrust, Frist and Ranking Minority Member Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) hold reservations about the exact form of S. 1305. Frist agreed that it was important to have a bill “stating the [objectives] we all support.” “What you’re saying is right...on its merits,” Rockefeller agreed, but he found himself “torn [about] supporting a message bill as opposed to a passable bill.” He preferred a range of funding options, and urged more “coalition-building on the part of those who want this to happen.” Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), a Subcommittee Member who has not signed on as a co-sponsor, voiced his support for the legislation during his brief appearance at the hearing.

Jones testified that “the Administration agrees very strongly with the sentiment of S. 1305.” She stated that President Clinton’s FY 1999 budget “proposes the single largest increase ever” for R&D. She warned Members that it was essential to invest across the broad spectrum of science and engineering fields, not just in health research, for which Congress has provided significant increases in recent years.

Rodin spoke about federally-funded university research, saying “the system provides the least expensive way to harness the power of science” because it makes use of the universities’ human and infrastructure resources. Commenting that between 1987 and 1995, federal R&D fell an average rate of 2.6 percent a year in constant dollars, she expressed concern that “we’re taking more out of the system than we’re putting back in.” She agreed that the end of the Cold War required a new policy and new impetus for investing in R&D, and proposed a series of guiding principles for university-based research: a focus on peer-review, graduate student training as a component, increased allocations across a broad spectrum of fields, stability and sustainability of funding, recognition of infrastructure needs, federal reimbursement of university costs, and wide dissemination of results by the universities.

According to Teich, civilian federal R&D peaked in the mid-1960s in constant dollars, dropped off in later years, and has never regained its 1960s levels. The FY 1999 request overall represents a 2.2 percent increase over FY 1998, he said, enough to “just stay ahead of inflation.” But total federal R&D would still show a decline from FY 1994 levels relative to inflation, he reported. Only health research has shown “practically uninterrupted” growth in the past decades, Teich said. Echoing Jones, he cautioned that “the nation’s health and other national goals are not well-served if [biomedical research] is the only area” which is well-supported in the years ahead.

Suggesting that “we have to do it within our means,” Rockefeller continued to question whether S. 1305 was passable. “Can we both improve [the policy-making process] and double the funding?” he asked. “I believe we can do both,” answered Peterson.

S. 1305 currently has 17 co-sponsors in the Senate (10 Democrats and 7 Republicans), and more are being sought. A companion bill, H.R. 3660, was introduced in the House by Rep. Joe Kennedy (D-MA) on April 1. It also has 17 co-sponsors, 14 Democrats and 3 Republicans.