Mr. President, first I thank Senator Reid and Senator McConnell for their fine statements and their willingness to be the lead in bringing this bill to the floor. It is bipartisan legislation. It is legislation that was developed in the…
Mr. President, first I thank Senator Reid and Senator McConnell for their fine statements and their willingness to be the lead in bringing this bill to the floor. It is bipartisan legislation. It is legislation that was developed in the last Congress. We were not able to complete action on it there, so we are trying to do so at this time.
It does represent the work of three committees over the past year. Those are the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee and, of course, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. I am fortunate to serve on two of those committees.
The chairman and ranking member of each of the three committees are cosponsoring this bill. In fact, we now have 57 Members of the Senate who are cosponsoring this legislation, with Senators Reid and McConnell as the lead sponsors.
This bill reflects a deep undercurrent of anxiety in this country. It was highlighted recently by the very best-selling book by Tom Friedman called ``The World Is Flat.'' It is also highlighted by the report to which Senator McConnell just referred, the ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' report issued by the National Academies of Science and Engineering. Both of these publications highlight a strengthening, worldwide, of the effort in science and technology.
Although we in the United States are still a world leader in these areas, other nations are clearly catching up. Without effort and intervention now, and attention to this issue now, I fear we may lose our edge in high technology areas that are critical to our future economy. The high technology competition has been an ongoing effort and continues and will continue indefinitely.
In the 1980s, during the Cold War, we were about to lose our semiconductor leadership to Japan. Motivated then by national security concerns, the U.S. Government worked with industry to help preserve our domestic chip-making capability. Along with Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and Dr. Bob Noyce, Gordon Moore from Intel, and others, we were able to launch a public-private partnership called Sematech. This partnership developed early phase technologies designed to keep our semiconductor industry competitive.
Sematech was a success. It kept our industry competitive through the 1990s and even today. But the issue we are faced with here in 2007 is even more troubling. India and China and other countries from the former Soviet Union now represent nearly 3 billion new capitalists who are coming at us in a competitive way through the Internet where, in one click, anyone in this country can order a product from anywhere in the world and have that delivered to his or her doorstep. Not only can these countries and entrepreneurs in these countries manufacture at a fraction of the cost that oftentimes is required here in the United States, but in coordination with their Governments they are climbing up the value chain by developing the professional talents in areas such as research and engineering and in telemedicine and in finance--in a whole variety of areas.
We have taken for granted that our Nation would never be displaced in many of these areas. These are areas that represent part of the pillars of our national identity. Many Americans have grown up assuming the United States would always be the leader in high technology, but that is not a foregone conclusion. It is not the simple box fan that is being made in China today that concerns people. It is the sophisticated code from Beijing for enterprise server software or state-of-the-art locomotives and turbines designed in Bangalore when they used to be designed in this country.
The data paints a disturbing picture about the trends with which we are faced. Right now the United States invests about 2.7 percent of its gross domestic product in research and development. That is not bad. It puts us No. 5 in the world in the percentage of our gross domestic product invested in research and development. Yet we are still behind Korea. We are still behind Japan. Both those countries invest over 3 percent of their gross domestic product in research and development.
However, the issue is not to look at the static snapshot that says today we are fifth in this level of effort, but to look at the change in the rate of commitment over time.
Let me do that with a chart here. I have several charts I want to briefly take people through, to make the case for what we are up against. This is the Emerging Economies Rapidly Increasing Research and Development Investments chart. The top line with the orange dots upon it shows the United States and shows we are investing more than other nations. But the bottom line, which, of course, is rising rapidly, is fast-growing economies. Those economies are specifically China, Ireland, Israel, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan. So clearly we have a circumstance where the rate of change is not favorable to us. In fact, during this same timeframe, China's research and development per GDP grew from .6 percent to 1.4 percent. That is still well behind us, the United States, but it doubled in slightly more than a half dozen years, at a 7-percent annual growth rate.
The trend line on the chart is self-evident. We need to begin to focus again on this area if we are going to maintain our ability to compete in biotechnology, in semiconductors, in flat panel displays. In some of those areas, particularly flat panel displays, the reality is we no longer compete effectively.
Let me move to a second chart. This second chart shows the widening trade deficit in certain advanced technologies, in areas such as semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and telecommunications. As the sophistication of the imports we bring into this country increases, so will the sophistication of the research and development that is needed to support this type of manufacturing. You can see this orange line here, which represents the trade balance in advanced technology. You can see that up until somewhere around 2000, or the late 1990s, we had a very positive balance of trade with regard to advanced technology products. Since then, the line has been going down and going down rapidly. This is a concern which all of us should focus on, and this legislation is designed to address this concern head on.
The third chart shows the average science literacy score of 15-year- old students by country. This is very hard to read. Unfortunately, the lettering is too small. But the main point can be understood. These, of course, are the future scientists and engineers in the world, young people on whom we depend to become future scientists and engineers and innovators. Obviously, we are concerned that the United States ranks way down here on the chart compared to 15-year-old students in all of these countries above us: Japan, South Korea, Australia, Netherlands, Czech Republic, New Zealand, Canada, Switzerland, France, Belgium, Sweden, Ireland, Hungary--you can follow on down. We come in right behind Iceland. We need to do better. I think
everyone in this country who is concerned about the future of our economy and the future of our children knows we need to do better by those children and provide a better opportunity for them to compete in this world.
Let me move to the fourth chart. If we look further up the pipeline of future innovators, the news is not that much better. This chart shows the fraction of United States undergraduates who receive science and engineering degrees, so you can see that at least three times more college students graduate with science and engineering degrees in China each year than in the United States. This is not a favorable trend either. Obviously, there are more people in China. But our ability to compete in the world, to a substantial extent, is going to depend on how many people we can train and equip to compete in this science and competition.
The fifth chart I have here relates to trained scientists and engineers. This shows that China now produces almost as many Ph.D.'s as the United States. Again, the trend is the disturbing part of this chart. It is not that China is producing nearly as many doctoral degrees in the natural sciences and math and engineering as is the United States today. That is a fact but one that does not cause great concern. The concern is that we were dominant in this area and have been for a very long time. Now that has changed very dramatically. Universities in these other countries are first-class universities and people need to focus on that. Universities such as Tsinghua, in China, are very high quality. If they turn out a Ph.D. in engineering or science or the natural sciences in these schools, those individuals are world-class scientists in their fields.
There is a 1995 quote by Alan Greenspan that sums up the importance of investment in research and development and education:
Had the innovations of recent decades, especially in
information technologies, not come to fruition, productivity
growth would have continued to languish at the rate of the
preceding 20 years.
Much of the prosperity we have enjoyed and have come to expect has been the result of the focus we have had on science and engineering in our history.
The final chart I have here is one from ``The Economist.'' It is based on the 2006 work that was done by three individuals at the Federal Reserve. It deals with this broad category of so-called intangible assets, assets such as research and development, information technology, even finance.
Basically what it says is, as a percentage of gross domestic product, there is a very large amount of our gross domestic product that is tied to these so-called intangible assets. They now account for nearly 11 percent of our gross domestic product--that is $3.1 trillion in 2003. In other words, growth that is attributed to such areas is absolutely crucial to our overall economy--again, another reason why we need to be concerned about this issue.
With this background, let me briefly talk about what is in the bill before I defer to my colleague here, Senator Alexander. In the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the portion of the bill that was developed out of that committee, we do several things. First, we create a director for math and science education in the Department of Energy whose job it is to coordinate math and science education, departmentwide. The director would report to the Under Secretary for Science in the Department of Energy.
Next, we would significantly increase funding for the Department of Energy's Office of Science to match the multiyear funding profile of the President's advanced competitiveness initiative which he presented to us here this year.
Third, the bill proposes to create an Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy, to translate basic research that is carried out in the Office of Science into solutions for critical problems facing the applied energy programs in the Department.
Examples of such problems would include hydrogen fuel storage using new materials or applying nanoscience to a new generation of solid- state lights.
The bill will also address broader themes related to math and science education. According to the National Academy of Sciences, the technical building blocks of our Nation's economic strength have been eroding for a time. We need to produce students who are prepared to meet the challenges of the 21st century. That means more attention to math and science education.
America COMPETES contains a number of important provisions to improve K-12 math and science education, strengthen science and math skills of our teaching workforce. I know Senator Reid talked eloquently about that need and, of course, the commitment our former colleague, Paul Simon, had to progress in that area.
First, it provides incentives for universities to systematically change the way they prepare teachers to teach math and science. The legislation provides grants to universities to integrate the teacher preparation programs with rich content subject matter in math and science, develop bachelor's degree programs in math and science with concurrent teacher certification, as well as master's degree programs in math and science for people who are currently teaching in our schools.
Second, to make these programs attractive to students who are inclined to study these subjects--math, science, and engineering--the legislation significantly expands the National Science Foundation scholarships for students to become math and science teachers.
The legislation significantly expands opportunities for teachers to strengthen their math and science skills. The bill increases training for teachers to become qualified to teach advanced placement courses and international baccalaureate courses in math and science. The bill provides significant training opportunities for teachers at both the National Science Foundation, as well as our National Laboratories, and there I think some of the summer programs Senator Reid was talking about are intended to take place at our universities, at our laboratories. Clearly, he is right in saying we need to provide the financial wherewithal so that teachers can take advantage of these programs and can upgrade their knowledge and then give that knowledge to their students the next school year.
Further, the legislation provides grants to States to promote better alignment of elementary and secondary education with the knowledge and skills needed for success in postsecondary education and in the 21st century workforce.
The bill significantly increases funding for the National Science Foundation, essentially doubling that budget in 5 years, while ensuring that the math and science education programs that are in the National Science Foundation increase at the same rate as the overall budget increases.
The bill helps manufacturers by increasing funding for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST, by 33 percent over 4 years.
As I have said many times, this America COMPETES bill is only an authorization bill. The hard part, obviously, is going to be providing the funds to carry out the programs in this bill to meet these authorization targets we have set.
In this regard, we were successful just a month or so ago, with Senator Alexander's good help, in adopting an amendment in the Senate which was an amendment to the budget resolution. It was adopted 71 to 1 to provide $1 billion in additional leeway or additional opportunity to meet the President's request in the areas of funding for the Department of Energy's Office of Science, the National Science Foundation, and NIST. Because of that amendment to the budget resolution, virtually all of the authorization we are calling for in this legislation will be permitted to be appropriated this year, and that is very good news.
This bill is a good bill. It is bipartisan. Like most bipartisan bills, it is the product of much negotiation. Many competing views, many competing interests have had a chance to be heard.
I am proud of the way this bill has come together. Our staffs deserve great credit for the hard work they have put into this legislation.
I particularly commend Senator Alexander. He is the person who got this initiative started and came to me initially and said: Let's do this letter to the National Academies and see if they will do a study and tell us what are the most important things we can do in this country to keep this country competitive in world markets. That is what
then led to the Augustine Commission report and, of course, that combined with the other reports that came forward--and there were several other very useful reports--that have gotten us to this point. Senator Alexander deserves particular credit for the success we have had so far.
I hope all colleagues will look seriously at this legislation and will support the effort to move ahead with it. This is authorizing legislation. In doing the appropriations bills that will come to the floor later this year, we still will have an opportunity to debate the specific funding levels for some of these programs. This sets out a framework for progress which can be very beneficial to this country and a framework which is long overdue.
I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.
I yield the floor. I know my colleague from Tennessee wishes to speak at this time.