Mr. Speaker, I chair the Subcommittee on Research on the Committee on Science, and I am very concerned that science and technology should not be in the partisan politic arena for this election in November. At a speech in Denver on Monday,…
Mr. Speaker, I chair the Subcommittee on Research on the Committee on Science, and I am very concerned that science and technology should not be in the partisan politic arena for this election in November.
At a speech in Denver on Monday, John Kerry kicked off a week of campaign politics focused on science and technology policy. He attacked President Bush for putting politics over science and promised to reinvigorate American innovation. As chairman of the House Subcommittee on Research, and a long-time advocate of expanded support for science and technology, I suggest Mr. Kerry is putting politics before science.
In the strongest possible way, I urge this issue must remain bipartisan. Even in today's highly charged political environment, I am disappointed that Senator Kerry has chosen to politicize science, and I feel compelled to respond to his misleading and actually sometimes false statements and attacks on this administration.
Senator Kerry's fact sheet promises to support scientific research based on facts, not ideology, and I respectfully suggest that a good place for the Senator to start would be to minimize the distortion of facts and ideological rhetoric that are so prevalent in his very own press releases on this subject.
A quick review of the Senator's recent press release on science and technology and its accompanying letter of endorsement, signed by some Nobel prize winning scientists, reveals several distortions and factual errors that should be brought to light. They include: Failure to disclose backgrounds of Democrat party activism by these scientists.
The Kerry campaign touted the endorsement of 48 scientists, as if they were speaking on behalf of the welfare of science and discovery itself. But, in fact, it is clear these scientists are, collectively, also very passionate liberal ideologues with an extensive record of support for the Democratic party.
Twenty-two of Senator Kerry's Nobel endorsers show up on the Federal Election Commission, the FEC Web site, as having donated $25,000 to Democrats for every $1,000 donated to Republicans. To repeat: $25,000 to the Democrats for every $1,000 to Republicans. Obviously, some bias for the Democrats.
The lead organizers of the letter, Burton Richter, Harold Varmus, and Mario Molina, announced their support for Kerry in a conference call as though they were nonpartisan objective observers that had no choice but to reluctantly support Kerry's campaign.
But by way of their public record of financial support for Democratic candidates, Richter, Varmus and Molina have consistently used their names outside of science, donating $13,950 to Democrats such as Wesley Clark, Al Gore, Barbara Boxer and Bill Bradley.
If Senator Kerry wants to limit the exploitation of science for political gain, he should start by fully disclosing the history of political contributions by his prize-winning supporters, most of whom have had their research supported from government funds.
One of Mr. Kerry's false claims: The Kerry campaign ``fact sheet'' begins by stating that, ``George W. Bush has led one of the most antiscience administrations in our Nation's history,'' and goes on to claim that the President ``has proposed cutting research and development in most nondefense research programs through fiscal year 2009.''
This projection is in fact not a Bush administration proposal but, rather, a particular result of the AAAS, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, that is based on multiyear revenue and spending projections, combined with the administration's goal to halve the deficit in five years. In short, it is not correct.
Let me report the assumptions that were made in reality, and what is grounded in reality is in the Bush administration and this Congress, there has been a stellar record of support for science and technology funding. By almost every measure, funding for science and technology under President Bush's watch has increased dramatically.
Since the President took office in 2001, Federal support for R&D has increased by 37 percent after adjusting for inflation, growing from $78 billion to $107 billion in constant 2000 dollars.
By comparison, Federal support for R&D actually decreased 4 percent in President Clinton's first term, going from $77.4 billion in 1993 to $74.4 billion the last year of Clinton's term (source: FY 2005 budget, historical tables).
False Claim of America's Scientific Demise. The title of Senator Kerry's press release, ``Kerry Pledges to Once Again Make America the Leader in Science,'' is emblematic of the pessimistic approach to America he has taken with his campaign. If John Kerry doesn't think America is the world leader in science and technology, what country does he think is better?
The truth is, by every measure, the United States is far and away the 800-pound gorilla when it comes to science and technology. The challenge is keeping it there and not letting it
disrupt bipartisan support with a bunch of political cheap shots. The U.S. spends nearly three times as much on R&D as the second-place country, Japan. And more money is spent on R&D activities in the U.S. each year than the rest of the G-7 countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom) combined. The United States also holds strong leads in specific sectors. For example, the U.S. produces 32 percent of the entire world output in high-technology products. Technology products also account for a very large share of U.S. exports, thereby making a positive contribution to our overall trade balance (source: National Science Board Science and Engineering Indicators, 2004).
A Record To Run From. Finally, Senator Kerry likes to attack President Bush for ``not having a record to run on.'' But while the President indeed does have a strong science and technology record, it is worthwhile for us to examine Senator Kerry's record on science and technology as a member of the Senate for the past two decades. A review of floor statements posted on Senator Kerry's web site show that, over the past 4 years, he's only mentioned science four times in floor statements. Further, even though Senator Kerry is a member of the influential Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, he has not introduced any legislation during this Congress on science and technology issues. Science, research, and innovation are vital to our country's future. Senator Kerry hasn't shown leadership on science and technology during his two decades in the Senate. Now he is dividing what has been bipartisan support for science and technology. Mr. Kerry, it is not good for science and it is not good for our country's future.