[Pages H10149-H10155]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

SENSE OF HOUSE REGARDING NATIONAL SCIENCE POLICY

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree
to the resolution (H. Res. 578) expressing the sense of the House of
Representatives that the print of the Committee on Science entitled
``Unlocking Our Future: Toward a New National Science Policy'' should
serve as a framework for future deliberations on congressional science
policy and funding.
The Clerk read as follows:

H. Res. 578

Whereas the United States must maintain and improve its
preeminent position in science and technology in order to
advance human understanding of the universe and all it
contains, and to improve the lives, health, and freedom of
all peoples; and
Whereas the Committee on Science of the House of
Representatives is hereby submitting a print to Congress
entitled ``Unlocking Our Future: Toward a New National
Science Policy'': Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of
Representatives that the print from the Committee on Science
entitled ``Unlocking Our Future: Toward a New National
Science Policy'' should serve as a framework for future
deliberations on congressional science policy and funding.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Brown) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all members may have 5
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the
resolution under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.

[[Page H10150]]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to come to the floor today in support of H.
Res. 578, which asks the House to endorse the Science Committee's
National Science Policy Study, produced by our friend and colleague
from Michigan the Committee Vice Chairman (Mr. Ehlers). The study
``Unlocking Our Future: Toward a New National Science Policy'' is the
result of over a year's work by the committee and reflects an approach
to science policy that has earned the support of both sides of the
aisle.
We have all heard the expression ``if it ain't broke, don't fix it.''
Well, the clear message of this report is that, while not exactly
broke, America's science policy is nonetheless in need of some pretty
significant maintenance.

{time} 2015

Mr. Speaker, this then is not a visionary document, but it is, I
think, a document for visionaries. After all, that is what is
scientists are, and it is important that we find ways to support them
for the contributions they make to our national security, our health
and our welfare, and this study succeeds in doing just that.
In my view what makes this report different from other science policy
reports published by various groups over the years, some of them very
good, is the Committee on Science's intention to act on its
recommendations in future oversight hearings in legislation. Indeed
this report should not be seen as the end, but rather the beginning of
a long process that will involve Congress, the Executive Branch, the
States, universities and industry all working together.
Mr. Speaker, this report has generated a great deal of excitement
within the scientific community, and before concluding my remarks I
would like to share with the House some statements in support of this
document from our colleagues and in the Executive Branch.
Dr. Neal Lane, the President's Science Adviser, said he found the
report to be harmonious with the President's established science policy
goals, and he commended it for underscoring the importance of
sustaining and nurturing America's world-leading science and technology
enterprise.
Dr. Rita Colwell, Director of the National Science Foundation also
praised the report noting its emphasis on the critical role of Federal
support for fundamental research and especially merit based investments
in university research. Doctor Colwell was also gratified that the
report highlights the singular role that math, science and technology
education play in any discussions of national science policy.
Mr. Speaker, I insert the full text of these statements in the
Record:

Statement of Dr. Neal Lane

In general, I find the Committee's report to be harmonious
with the President's established science policy goals. I
commend Representative Ehlers for underscoring the importance
of sustaining and nurturing America's world-leading science
and technology enterprise. Half of our economic productivity
in the last half-century is attributable to technological
innovation and the science that supports it.
The report's recommendations on the importance of education
concur with the President's views that the degree to which
our nation flourishes in the 21st century will rest upon our
success in developing a well-educated workforce able to
embrace the rapid pace of technological change.
I hope this report will serve as a catalyst for broad-based
bipartisan Congressional support of the Administration's
thoughtful investments across the entire science and
technology portfolio. Such a partnership to stimulate
scientific discovery and new technologies will take America
into the new century well equipped for the challenges and
opportunities that lie ahead.
I look forward to working with House Science Committee Vice
Chairman Ehlers and other members of Congress to ensure that
our national science policy keeps in step with a changing
world.
____

Statement by Dr. Rita Colwell

I want to commend Rep. Vern Ehlers of his diligent work in
preparing this report on national science policy. I am
particularly pleased that the report emphasizes the critical
role of federal support for fundamental research, and
especially for merit based investments in university
research. The technological developments that are key to
economic growth, public health, and national prosperity all
rely on discoveries occurring at and across the frontiers of
science and engineering.
I am also gratified that Rep. Ehlers has highlighted the
singular role that math, science and technology education
play in any discussion of national science policy. We cannot
expect to maintain a system of world class research unless we
have broad support from an informed public, and we cannot
have an informed public unless we commit ourselves to
improving public science literacy. I look forward to working
closely with Rep. Ehlers in fostering widespread awareness
and discussion of the issues raised in this report.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, the Nation's scientific enterprise is too
important to our future to be left on auto pilot. In adopting House
Resolution 578 and endorsing the National Science Policy Study the
House will be sending an unmistakable signal that America's scientific
enterprise will no longer be taken for granted in the Halls of
Congress, and the real work will begin of turning the ideas in this
report into sound policy that is good for science and good for the
Nation.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I might consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on H.R. 578, and I commend my colleague
the honorable gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) for the significant
effort to bring forward a comprehensive science policy report, and I
commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Brown) for allowing it to come this far.
The report offers a guide and framework for continued focus on the
importance of science as well as an outline for future congressional
scientific discussions and deliberations regarding policy and funding
options. The report, however, lacks significant input on issues of
major concern.
My Committee on Science colleagues, the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Lee), the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) and the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), and I offered dissenting views for
inclusion as a means to strengthen the report. We find the report needs
to address four critical areas: the role of under represented
populations in the fields of science and technology, social and
behavioral sciences, K-12 science and math education and the challenges
of environmental quality.
The role of unrepresented populations:
This report makes only passing mention of the role of unrepresented
populations as African Americans, hispanic and people with disabilities
in the field of science and technology. It is essential that any
science policy document address the need to create a policy to include
these populations in our Nation's science and technology efforts. If we
do not, we will have a technology divide between Americans.
For example, presently the percentage of white households owning
computers is 40.8 percent as compared to 19.3 percent of African
American households and 19.4 percent of hispanic households. In
addition, 39 percent of black students in public schools have access to
computers at school compared with 56 percent of white students. Solving
this problem is crucial because from 1996 to year 2006 employment in
science and engineering occupations is expected to increase at more
than three times the rate of any other occupations. At the same time
some projections state that by year 2000, two-thirds of the new
entrants into the American work force will be made up of minorities and
women. But the number of hispanic and African American first year
graduate enrollment in science and engineering fields dropped by 16.2
percent and 19.3 percent respectively from 1996 to 1997. Taken
together, these trends spell disaster as a whole. Whole generation of
young people may be left behind unable to ride the technological wave.
To begin this process we recommend:
1. The development of programs to involve under-represented
communities in the field of science and technology. For example, the
National Science Foundation's urban systemic and rural systemic
initiative programs focus on a specialized math and science curricula
at the high school level. Programs which are based on variables such as
household income will improve the education of our youth. High schools
with a majority of low-income students have been shown to lack adequate
science, engineering, math and technology curricula.

[[Page H10151]]

The involvement of under-represented populations in the scientific
community by partnership programs between historically black colleges
and universities, hispanic-serving institutions, large research
institutions and corporate industry. Cooperative research and
development agreements, the CRADAs, is an excellent opportunity for
collaborations, provide role models and a support system for smaller
institutions. However recent National Science Foundation data show from
1993 to 1994 that research institutions received approximately $12.7
billion from 10 Federal agencies. Ten billion dollars of this amount
was allocated to the top 100 research universities, but not one
historically black or historically hispanic university received a
substantial amount. Only $140 million went to the top 81 historically
black and historically hispanic producing students while John Hopkins
alone received $701 million. More needs to be done to develop the
CRADAs with minority institutions of higher education if we are to see
more minorities in the fields of science and technology.
In offering these views it is our hope that any future congressional
conversations include the aforementioned in an effort to create a
national science policy which is sound, diverse and inclusive. Mr.
Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) will control the balance of the time
on the minority side.
There was no objection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), the author of this report.
(Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the House this
evening to speak regarding the report of the Committee on Science,
Unlocking Our Future: Toward a New National Science Policy, that I have
spent much of the last year working on.
We started this mammoth effort just one year ago. It has involved a
tremendous amount of work on the part of myself, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown)
and our staffs, and has had the full support of the Speaker, and I
certainly wish to thank them all for their support and their work.
I consider the release of this report to be a commencement; it is a
beginning and not an end. It is intended to serve as the foundation for
continued discussion within the Committee on Science, within the
Congress and within the Nation regarding the future funding of science
and policy decisions relating thereto. This report was not intended to
be an end in itself, but rather to stimulate discussion and provide
direction for the Congress and for the Committee on Science in future
deliberation on this topic.
I am certainly delighted by the reception the report has received up
to this point. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has
named some of the responses we have received, those from the Director
of the National Science Foundation, from members of the bipartsan
Senate Science and Technology Caucus, and from the White House in the
person of the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
All of them have indicated support for the report, and similar letters
from many scientists, scientific organizations and universities have
been pouring into our office and into the chairman's office.
The only comments that we received reflecting reservations agree with
and support most of the report, but are concerned about what is not in
the report. In other words, they believe that we should have gone
further, and indeed we should have and would have in certain subject
areas had we had the time.
In particular I would like to respond to the comments of the
gentlewoman from Texas who spoke just before me. I appreciate and agree
with much of what she just said. There is a great need for us to
continue our work in the area of underrepresented populations. I am
pleased to report and I do acknowledge in the report, that the
instigation, the seed for this report, arose from an African American,
Dr. Homer Neal of the University of Michigan, who was Chairman of the
U.M. Physics Department when I was in the Michigan State Senate. He
invited me to the campus, and we began discussions regarding science
and science policy. He eventually became Vice President of Research and
then Interim President of the University of Michigan and was
instrumental in pulling together a large number of scientists--
administrators from major universities to begin discussions on this
topic. They met with me, they met with the previous chairman of the
Committee on Science, Mr. Walker, and then Dr. Neal organized a
symposium at the University of Michigan which was instrumental in
beginning the process of developing a science policy in this Nation.
In preparing this report we sought input from the scientific
community. I have personally spoken to or with approximately 10,000
scientists and perhaps two thousand nonscientists over the course of
the past year. In addition, we started a web site. We have received
over 300 E-mails and well over 50 letters, very thoughtful letters, I
might add, from scientists across the country. We have held seven
hearings specifically on this topic, and in addition to that last year
held four hearings on science, math, engineering and technology
education, something that is extremely important to this country. We
listened very carefully to what every group or individual had to say,
and I believe this report reflects much of what we have learned.
But as important as what we learned from these sources was the
conviction that we started with.

{time} 2030

Our goal, our vision, was that America ought to maintain and improve
her preeminent position in science and technology in order, first of
all, to advance human understanding of the universe and all that it
contains, and, second, to improve the lives, health, and freedoms of
all peoples on this planet.
Science--including the physical, natural, life and social sciences,
math and engineering can help bring about this vision. The scientific
and technological enterprise is critical to bringing about advances in
understanding that help ensure that we can maintain our national
defense, keep people healthy, and bring about prosperity.
I might add that, if we can maintain people's health and their
prosperity, we have introduced a great deal of stability which very
naturally will lead to greater democracy in this planet. I truly
believe that science and technology are the key to our economic
future--as a Nation, and as a planet.
But for science to continue to exert its beneficial effects on
society, the scientific enterprise must be kept strong and sustainable.
Much of our report is devoted to recommendations for doing so.
We have identified three major areas needing attention. (1) We must
have continued discoveries at the scientific frontier; (2) we need
research advances in the private sector; and (3) we must improve our
system of education from preschool through graduate school.
These are critical areas to address because, first of all, future
advances in fundamental research will depend largely on substantial and
stable funding for this research from the Federal Government.
Second, research in the private sector and industry is important in
bringing the fruits of understanding-driven research to society through
applied research.
Third, science and math education, the development of our Nation's
intellectual capital, is fundamentally important to our Nation's
future.
While the freedom of individual researchers is necessary to bring
about ground-breaking scientific discoveries, it is crucial that the
scientific and engineering enterprise strengthen its ties to society,
the taxpayers, who support it. Our report suggests a number of ways to
do so.
In addition, science has another role, and that is to help us make
decisions, as a society, as a government, within both the regulatory
sector and the judicial branch, as individuals and as voters. We must
develop and strengthen our ability to draw on science and engineering
to help us make decisions, and our report suggests ways to bring this
about.

[[Page H10152]]

In writing a document that adhered to my initial goals, in that it
should be coherent, comprehensive, and yet concise, we were not able to
address any particular issue or aspect of the scientific enterprise in
great depth.
Because the report is so comprehensive, encompassing not only the
role of the Congress or the Federal Government but also the private
sector and our entire education system, it does not explore any
particular issue in great depth. It is instead a broad-brush view of
the entire science and engineering enterprise.
In part because of this ``big picture'' approach, this report is the
beginning of a process, not the end of one.
The work of addressing specific science policy issues will have to
come later. I am gratified, in fact, that the additional views
submitted by some committee members indicate a desire to pursue further
issues raised in the report. It is my hope that we will do so in the
next Congress.
Much hard work remains. We must address these issues that are so
critical to maintaining our science and technology enterprise. Let's
start that process. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time
as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown).
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, a year ago at the Science Policy Study Kick-off
Roundtable, Speaker Gingrich said, and I quote, ``You give me a mission
large enough to mobilize the Nation. You give me a set of strategic
investments large enough to be worth doing, and then make it my problem
to go out and figure out how to find the money.''
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) accepted this challenge, and
I commend him on his efforts to lay down a national policy for science,
math, engineering, and technology.
In setting policy, decisions must be made about the direction this
country should move in, the precedence we are willing to set, and the
scientific agenda for the coming years.
The problem with this report is that, and this has been already
acknowledged, so I am not trying to beat a dead horse, the Speaker
sought a bold visionary document, and what he got was a document which,
valuable as it is, still satisfies mainly the needs of the status quo.
The Speaker, in reviewing the report at the press conference with
which it was announced said this is a very good start, but it really
only scratches the surface of what over the next 4 or 5 years will have
to be a very important national dialogue.
This is the situation that we are in. I like the report as far as it
goes. I think I can echo what the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers)
and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) said. But I have
cast my role here in the Congress at trying to look beyond the status
quo at what needs to be done to solve the problems of the future. To
me, this report does not go far enough in terms of that particular kind
of goal.
So I am going to offer and I have offered to continue to work with
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) whose contribution is very
valuable. I have gone through many science policy reports over the last
30-odd years. I think this is the first one that I have seen that was
completed on time and under budget. I think any person who can do that
in dealing with a complex subject like this deserves to be commended.
What I do think we need to do now is to accept the judgment of the
Speaker that we need to continue working in this direction and to give
our very best efforts to doing that.
The gentlewoman from Texas has pointed out some of the areas in which
we need to continue working. This report, incidentally, as the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) has indicated is very acceptable
to the research universities of this country and to those who benefit
from the present establishment of science.
They like the idea of the Congress committing itself to provide more
money for what they are already doing, and they will be glad to spend
that. That is not the problem.
The question now is what social purpose are we serving through the
expenditure of that money? We no longer can justify on the grounds of,
let us say, national security, although we will continue to spend some
money on that, but that will continue to decline. We need to look for
new ways of answering the question, for what purpose are we supporting
this very large scientific establishment that we have created.
I happen to feel that such an establishment is of very great value,
but I think we need to look at a new paradigm in terms of the purpose
of that establishment and what it can do to achieve the goals of human
society.
I know that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) referred to the
need for greater democracy on this planet. Our good friend, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) in his eloquent remarks this
morning quoted from Madison's Federalist Paper Number 51 on the
problems of justice and how to achieve them.
The physical sciences cannot solve those kinds of problems, but it is
conceivable that newly developing areas of science, in the social
sciences, the cognitive sciences, interdisciplinary science, a number
of other areas might cast some light on this age-old search for a more
effective, just society that we have not yet achieved.
We sometimes almost look as if we are not even coming closer to it.
But we need to use the best minds of this society to work on the most
important goals, the goals of the highest priority to this society.
This is the mind-set that we have to inculcate in the scientific
leadership of this country today.
I am not discouraged at the possibility of doing that. I think this
report, perhaps, does give us a framework in which we can move forward
in that direction. But because I feel that it is my goal to continue to
be the doubting Thomas and to focus on the needs of the future, I am
going to withhold my support. I did this in committee, I might say,
although I did not make any effort to influence the other members of
the committee.
I can tell you that more than 75 percent of the Committee on Science
have signed their approval of this, which I think is probably a figure
that ought to be even exceeded by the full House.
But I am going to play the role that I have chosen, hoping that the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) and the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) will understand that I feel that, that way, I can
make the greatest contribution to moving us forward along some of the
more unorthodox paths that we need to follow if science is truly going
to be the asset to this society that I know it can be.
Mr. Speaker, one year ago, at the Science Policy Study Kick-off
Roundtable, Speaker Newt Gingrich said: ``You give me a mission large
enough to mobilize the nation. You give me a set of strategic
investments large enough to be worth doing, and then make it my problem
to go out and figure out how to find the money.''
Representative Ehlers accepted this challenge and I commend him on
his effort to lay down a national policy for science, math,
engineering, and technology.
In setting policy, decisions must be made about the direction this
country should move in, the precedents we are willing to set, and the
scientific agenda for the coming years. Unfortunately, these are
precisely the decisions that were absent from the report.
The speaker sought a bold, visionary document; what he got was
largely an affirmation of the status quo.
Any discussion surrounding this report or this broad topic must be
put in context and not viewed as an isolated event. This Science Policy
Report is not the first of its kind--not even the first such study by
the Science Committee--and it will not be the last.
Over the last two decades I can point to a long string of incremental
steps in the evolution of our thinking on science policy. In fact, I
can find twenty significant studies on national science and technology
policy just within the last few years, and I would ask permission to
append this list to these remarks.
Twenty-two years ago, President Gerald Ford helped redefine the
federal role in science policy with the signing of the National Science
and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976, a
major work of the House Science and Technology Committee. While the Act
was signed by the President, it was never fully implemented.
However, it did lead to the further definition of the federal role in
technology transfer and advanced technology development in the 1988
Trade Bill signed by President Reagan. The Trade Bill then opened up a
restructuring of

[[Page H10153]]

the broad area of Government-Industry-University cooperation as one way
to making the U.S. industrial system more competitive with the national
systems of Europe and Asia, which historically had encouraged closer
ties between government and industry.
During the Bush Administration, under the skilled guidance of his
Science Advisor, Dr. D. Allan Bromley, and with the input of many
science and technology organizations, continued progress was made in
improving the process of innovation, of moving new inventions and
technologies from the labs to the market-place, and defining, through
the device of cooperative research and development agreements, the
legal structure for individual institutional agreements.
With the end of the Cold War, this policy debate has intensified. The
House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology issued a report in
1992 on the health of research.
The Clinton Administration has attempted to make this imprint on
science policy with the 1994 report, ``Science in the National
Interest,'' a product of the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
This report prompted Congressional hearings and a renewed discussion of
science and technology policy at the national level.
With this historical perspective in mind, I would offer some guiding
principles for an ongoing dialogue about the future of science policy.
First, a new science policy should reflect our understanding of the
process of creativity and innovation. Second, a new science policy
should articulate the public's interest supporting science--the goals
and values the public should expect of the scientific enterprise.
Third, a new science policy should point towards decision-making tools
for better investment choices.
With respect to our understanding of the process of creativity and
innovation, virtually no one still believes in the Vannevar Bush-era
linear model of scientific breakthroughs leading inexorably to
technological developments.
Despite report language endorsing a more sophisticated model of
science and technology innovations arising through an iterative
process, the Ehlers report ultimately puts its money on the old linear
model by emphasizing Federal support for ``basic'' research. The report
provides no guidance on how the Federal government should determine
that a ``market failure'' has occurred in the downstream parts of the
R&D process or what types of policies would be appropriate to redress
such failures. I think we should work together to develop a policy on
the appropriate limits of Federal support that fits with our
understanding of how innovation actually works. Let's put our money
where our model is.
Further, the Ehlers report seems to support the traditional ``hard''
sciences with only passing mentions of engineering, biology, bio-
technology, the social sciences or the cognitive and policy sciences. I
think we need a more holistic conception of what constitutes important
science and worthwhile endeavors. An argument can be made that the most
pressing issues facing our society--crime, education reform, social
justice--are more likely to be addressed through investments in social
science rather than in the hard sciences. Yet, the report is silent on
the need to support this important research.
Next, concerning the public's interest in supporting science and what
goals and values the public should expect of the scientific enterprise,
it was over fifty years ago that Vannevar Bush argued that science was
worth public support because it could ``insure our health, prosperity,
and security as a nation in the modern world.'' I think those general
goals are still valid today. However, I also believe that we need to do
a more rational job of identifying specific social needs that science
can help us remedy. What are the long term goals for society which the
public should expect from these investments? To put it simply, science
for what end? It isn't enough to declare science a public good and walk
away from the table.
When we use public resources to support science and tchnology, we
should clearly identify the public purposes which we desire to achieve.
In addition to clearly articulating the goals for science, we need to
squarely face the values that science can help enhance or undermine. I
am particularly concerned about the possibility that increasing
technological sophistication and maldistribution of educational
opportunity could create a two-tiered society. What steps can we take
to guarantee that we do not become a society of technological haves and
have nots? This is a question of justice and equity in access to
science education, and to the fruits of the scientific and
technological enterprise.
To give an example, it is unfair to use public funds for biomedical
research if the fruits of that research are so expensive that only a
handful of the most economically advantaged can enjoy them. That is a
hidden redistribution of wealth and life-expectancy from poorer
Americans to richer Americans under the guise of ``basic'' research in
the life sciences. A new science policy must wrestle with these type of
questions.
Another example can be found in the disparity that continues to exist
between the number of white males and the number of women and
minorities who have access to and pursue higher education in science
and technology fields.
Some projections show that by the Year 2000, two-thirds of the new
entrants into the American workforce will be made up of minorities and
women. These numbers present a compelling argument for inclusion of
these groups when one considers sources of scientific capital, the
make-up of our workforce, and the nation's consumer base. Therefore,
the question is not if, but when, we will begin to seriously tackle the
issue of under-representtion of these groups. Any comprehensive policy
effort must address the inclusion of under-represented groups and
acknowledge the future implications for the economy and society if we
fail.
And lastly, as regards our decision-making tools for better
investment choices. In addition to identifying clear goals and values,
a new science policy should point towards methods for making better
decisions. Some of the elements for that are in place. For example, the
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) challenges our agencies
to develop comprehensive goals and measurements. However, in research
and development programs, GPRA is still a fairly blunt instrument and
is in need of fine-tuning.
The Office of Science and Technology Policy is in a position to
provide some overall coordination for our science policy, but it
doesn't always have the muscle to make its desires stick with executive
agencies.
Congress has creative leadership in both parties on science policy
questions, but we suffer from a disorganized process for passing
authorization and appropriation bills that leads to suboptimal
outcomes. I think that we need to tackle all of these elements of
decision-making as we move towards a more rational analysis of the
major problems facing society--affordable health, broadly based
economic opportunity, sustainable environmental policies and social
discontent--and of the science needed to address those problems.
Science policy must try to accommodate a complex system that has been
and will continue to change with increasing regularity. For this reason
we need a policy document that reflects our understanding of the
process of creativity and innovation, articulates the public's interest
in supporting science, and points towards decision-making tools for
better investment choices. Only then can we set forth goals that: (1)
Are broad and sustainable, (2) form an overall picture of what we want
our future on this planet to be, and (3) are based ultimately on
societal needs and our desire to improve the human condition.
Over the course of my career I have issued challenges to legislators,
agencies, and the science community to set goals, define priorities,
think in a global context, move beyond the limits imposed by discrete
disciplines, and to find ways science, engineering, and technology can
help society advance. The National Science Policy report written under
the direction of Congressman Ehlers is clearly an attempt to move the
science, engineering, and technology fields forward, but ultimately it
fails to adequately address the pressing issues that face the
scientific enterprise and society in coming years. Therefore, I cannot
agree that a Science Policy Report that fails to tackle these
challenges is ``a framework for future deliberations on congressional
science policy and funding'' as H. Res. 578 states.
I offer any help I can to Mr. Ehlers in continuing this dialogue, but
I will withhold my support for the resolution before us today.

20 Recent Science Policy Reports

1991--U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,
``Federally Funded Research: Decisions for a Decade.''
1992--U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Science, Space and
Technology, ``Report of the Task Force on Health of Research:
Chairman's Report.''
1992--Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and
Government, ``Enabling the Future: Linking Science and
Technology to Societal Goals.''
1992--Federal Coordinating Council for Science,
Engineering, and Technology, ``In the National Interest: The
Federal Government and Research-Intensive Universities.''
1992--Competitiveness Policy Council, ``First Annual Report
To the President and Congress--Building a Competitive
America.''
1992--President's Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology, ``Renewing the Promise: Research-Intensive
Universities and the Nation.''
1993--National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Science,
Engineering, and Public Policy, ``Science, Technology, and
the Federal Government: National Goals for a New Era.''
1993--Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and
Government, ``Science, Technology and Government for a
Changing World.''

[[Page H10154]]

1994--Executive Office of the President, President Clinton/
VP Gore, Office of Science and Technology Policy, ``Science
in the National Interest.''
1995--National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Science,
Engineering, and Public Policy, ``Reshaping the Graduate
Education of Scientists and Engineers.''
1995--Executive Office of the President, The Council of
Economic Advisors, ``Supporting Research and Development to
Promote Economic Growth: The Federal Government Role.''
1995--National Academy of Sciences, National Research
Council, ``Allocating Federal Funds for Science and
Technology.''
1996--National Science Foundation, ``National Patterns of
R&D Resources.''
1996--Council on Competitiveness, ``Endless Frontier,
Limited Resource: U.S. R&D Policy for Competitiveness.''
1996--Executive Office of the President, President Clinton/
VP Gore, Office of Science and Technology Policy,
``Technology in the National Interest.''
1996--Office of the Vice President for Research, University
of Michigan, ``The Future of the Government/University
Partnership.''
1996--U.S. Department of Commerce, ``Effective Partnering:
A Report to Congress on Federal Technology Partnerships.''
1997--Executive Office of the President, Office of Science
and Technology Policy, ``Science and Technology Shaping the
Twenty-first Century.''
1997--Lewis Branscomb et al., Harvard University, Center
for Science and International Affairs, ``Investing in
Innovation, Toward a Consensus Strategy for Federal
Technology Policy.''
1997--National Science Board, ``Government Funding of
Scientific Research.''
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words and insight of the gentleman from
California (Mr. Brown). I think that we are quite proud of the fact,
not only was this report completed on time and on budget, which we like
to do in the Committee on Science, but also this is one of the first
congressional initiatives on any major topic looking into the future
that is our own product rather than a reaction from something that has
come from the Executive Branch or private industry or the university.
I would like to see the Congress continue in this type of creative
venture where we look at how we can better the type of quality of life
that we will be bequeathing to our children and grandchildren.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman
from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening in support of H.Res. 578, a
resolution expressing the sense of the House that the Committee on
Science's report entitled ``Unlocking Our Future: Toward a New National
Science Policy'' should serve as a framework for maintaining and
strengthening our U.S. science policy for the 21st Century.
I, first of all, want to acknowledge the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), the
vice chairman, for their leadership and commitment toward a renewed
focus on U.S. science policy and for their effort to produce the report
that is before us this evening.
As my colleagues know, the Committee on Science has held many, many
hearings over the last year covering all aspects of science policy. I
applaud their work, support the recommendations set forth in the
committee's report.
I do want to say that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) had
many, many hearings in crafting together this science policy, and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Brown), the ranking member of the full
committee, was also there at many of those meetings. The gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), as a leader, has done an extraordinary
job.
The science policy study, in part, focuses on the need to revitalize
our Nation's educational system to ensure that students at every level,
from K through 12 through university, have the skills necessary to
excel in all areas of math and science.
The study also advocates promoting more flexibility in graduate level
science and engineering programs to encourage more student
participation. But most importantly, the study stresses the need to do
more to address the underrepresentation of women and minorities in
science and engineering fields.
To that end, the study indicates the passage of H.R. 3007, the
Commission on the Advancement of Women in Science, Engineering and
Technology Development, is an important step in achieving that goal.
H.R. 3007, which I introduced last fall, establishes a commission to
identify and address the problems associated with the recruitment,
retention, and advancement of women and minorities in science,
engineering, and technology development.
The commission will be comprised of representatives from both private
businesses and academia and will provide Congress with a list of policy
recommendations that will help break down the barriers that women and
minorities face in trying to become scientists and engineers.
As my colleagues know, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3007
under suspension of the rules on September 13. I am pleased to report
that the Senate approved the legislation last week and that H.R. 3007
is now awaiting the President's signature.
I see also the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) is here in
the chamber. It was jointly referred also to his committee, and I am
pleased that that committee also gave its seal of approval. So we are
already on our way of addressing some of the critical issues raised in
the science policy study.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Chairman Sensenbrenner), the gentleman from Michigan (Vice Chairman
Ehlers) for their hard work. I support the recommendations in the
report unlocking our future toward a new national science policy. I
look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
next Congress to further promote a strong U.S. science policy.

{time} 2045

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the idea of a science policy
statement is a very valuable idea. As a member of the House Committee
on Science, I have wanted for a long time that we bring focus around
the issues we work with. However, I think it is important to note that
we have a long way to go, and what we might be able to add to this
process is an understanding of greater creativity and innovation in
science and expanding the public's desire to participate in science, as
well as to understand the science investments that this country makes.
We also need better decision-making tools that will engage our
scientists around the Nation so that we can make the right choices of
investment.
Then, although we speak about education in this policy statement, I
think it is extremely important that we reflect more on the K through
12. One of our most important challenges is to encourage our young
people to be interested in the sciences, to desire to participate in
the sciences, and by that we must professionally develop our teachers,
and we must work on the K through 12 development.
So I would hope that as we conclude this study, that we will look to
do more and make it better to expand the interests of science
throughout the Nation.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the
balance of my time.
Let me close my remarks by expressing my appreciation and respect for
both the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) for both accepting this responsibility and
for producing this report. I am pleased to have the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) acknowledge that this report is a commencement. I
believe sincerely that he is willing and open to having more input as
related to the areas I have identified.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the
House suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 578.

[[Page H10155]]

The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________