Date: 2000-06-19
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE (democrat)
Chamber: H

JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman. let me first appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from New York and the gentleman from West Virginia because I think they probably did a competent job with what they had to work with. But I still believe that in addition to the veterans and the housing needs. this bill also represents a lost opportunity in research. The President proposed a historic budget increase for the National Science Foundation this year. The increase was intended to bolster the activities of an agency with a critically important role in sustaining the Nations capabilities in science and engineering research and education. The bill cuts the amount of the request by more than $500 million. This is shortsighted and inconsistent with the previous actions of the House. It also ignoresthe wellknown connection between research and economic- development. I characterize the bill . as shortsighted because it has now been shown that public support for basic research in science and engineering is an investment in the future economy and in the wellbeing of our citizens. Over the past 50 years. half of U.S. economic productivity can be attributed to technological innovation and the science that has supported it. The social rate of return for basic research performed at academic institutions has been found to be at least 28 percent. Basic research discoveries launch new industries that bring returns to the economy that far exceed the public investment. The recent example of the Internet. which emerged from research projects funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the National Science Foundation strikingly illustrates the true investment nature of such research expenditures. What then will be the effects of the anemic increase provided for the National Science Foundation by this bill? The most important is also the least quantifiable. that is. the lost opportunities due to research ideas that are not pursued. Last year alone. the National Science Foundation could not fund: 3.800 proposals that received very good or excellent ratings by peer reviewers. The. budget increase -requested for fiscal year 2001 has greatly reduced the num--ber of meritorious - research ideas doomed to rejection because of inadequate budgets. Nearly half of the increase in the fiscal year 2001 National Science Foundation budget proposalwas designated- for the core research programs of the foundation. This new funding would increase average grant size and duration as well as increasing the number of new awards. Inflation has reduced the relative value of National Science Foundation - awards. thereby adding to the overhead burden placed on the academic research community. That is. researchers- must generate multiple proposals to obtain adequate funding for their research projects. If NSF were to be allowed to reach its. goal of increasing average grant size to $108.000- and- grant duration to 3 years. it estimates the savings in the cost of research proposal preparation alone would be $50 million. Of course. this is only a portion of the potential savings since it does not include- reductions in the time for proposal reviews and the reduced cost to universities from administering these few grants. Overall. the cuts from proposed funding levels in the bill will result in more than 4.000 fewer awards for stateoftheart research and education activities. This reduction will curtail investments in exciting. cuttingedge research initiatives. such as information technology. the nanoscale science and engineering. and environmental research. The effect will be to slow the development of new discoveries with immense potential to generate significant benefits to society. The reduction in funding also translates into almost 18.000 fewer researchers. educators. and students receiving NSF support. This is a direct. and negative. effect on the shortages projected in the hightech workforce. It will reduce the number of welltrained scientists and engineers needed for the Nations future. Finally. I feel I must point out the inconsistency between the funding provided by the bill for NSF and the interest expressed by many Members of this House in the development and widespread use of information technology. . In February the House passed H.R. 2086 by acclamation. This bill authorizes nearly $5 billion over four years among .seven agencies for information technology research. NSF was the lead agency of the multiagency initiative and was provided a major portion of the resources. H.R. 4635 cuts the requests for NSFs part of this initiative by over $154 million. or by more than 20 percent. The need for the majornew investment in information technology research was advocated by the Presidents Information Technology Advisory Committee. This committee stated that: "Unless immediate steps are takbn to reinvigorate federal research in this critical area. we believe there will be a significant reduction in the rate of economic progress over the coming decades." I regret thatH.R. 4635 limits support for theresearch that will lead to breakthroughs in information technology. materials. environmental protection. and a host of technology dependent industries. The economic growth .that has been. fueled by advances in basic research wil be endangered becauseofthe failure of this bill to provide adequate resources for- the math.science. and engineering research and education activities of the National Science Foun-. dation. This is shameful and irresponsible.