SUNUNU FLOOR STATEMENT REGARDING THE AMERICA COMPETES ACT

Mr. SUNUNU. Madam President, I rise to speak on the legislation in general terms. As the Senator from Tennessee indicated, I filed three different amendments. I certainly wish to call at least one of those amendments up at the appropriate time. They address a number of concerns I have with the underlying legislation.

But let me begin by saying I do appreciate the complexity of the challenge the Senator from Tennessee has undertaken in trying to assemble from different committees of jurisdiction the components of this bill. I think, unfortunately, dealing with this legislation has laid bare some of the weaknesses and problems with the way we are organized in Congress because it has been, unfortunately, an inefficient process in many ways.

There are five or six different committees that have jurisdiction in different areas of this legislation. They all want to try to leave their mark on the legislation. As a result, the Senator from Tennessee and others have had to deal with duplication and overlap in many cases with initiatives begun by different committees that have effectively the same goal and the same end. Over the past 12 or 18 months, I think they have eliminated a number of these problems from the legislation but many remain. I am one of the only, if not the only, engineer in the Senate. At least I was an engineer; I worked as an engineer during my previous work experience. I would like to think that I am still employable as an engineer perhaps someday in the future. I do value very much this experience and this background in science and technology when we are dealing with problems on the Commerce Committee having to do with telecommunications, or spectrum allocation, or policies on environmental issues with particulate matter or pollution standards. I like to think it helps to have at least some grounding in a lot of the technical matters that underlie the basic legislation.

I think it is essential, when we are looking at policy to encourage and inspire students to pursue science and mathematics and to try to improve our competitiveness in fields of science and engineering, that we focus on a few core principles. I begin with the basic objective of maximizing research in the most basic areas of math and science. In this effort we are talking about the funds that go to the National Science Foundation and the funds that go to the National Institutes of Health. These are investments in basic sciences: in the case of the National Science Foundation, in physics, chemistry, physical science, and computational mathematics. They are peer-reviewed, which is intended to insulate them from political forces, legislative forces, and allow those with expertise in these areas to decide what sorts of research projects and programs receive funding in any given year.

It is essential we maintain that independent peer review process at the National Science Foundation, just as it is important at the National Institutes of Health, because if we allow politics to enter this process, we are going to do these areas a great injustice.

Commensurate with that focus on physical sciences and computational mathematics as we pursue research in science and engineering, it is also important that we avoid policies that try to pick winners or losers within our economy. Here I point to various programs that over the years have subsidized product development for profitable companies, product development for products being introduced into the existing marketplace today that effectively picks one firm and one firm's products at the expense of others. Some people would say, well, that is research. But it certainly isn't the kind of peer-reviewed research that does and should take place at the National Science Foundation. It is product development work. Any time we start subsidizing product development for companies that are competing in the marketplace, selling goods and services to consumers, we distort the marketplace, we provide unnecessary subsidies, and in programs like the advanced technology program we have done just that time and time again.

The companies that have received these subsidies are good firms with good employees, but I think putting funds in this area at the expense of physics and chemistry and mathematics at the National Science Foundation is a grave mistake. We need to maximize that research, make sure it is peer-reviewed, don't pick winners and losers in private industry, and focus on educational programs where it can make the biggest difference in inspiring young students in these careers in math and science.

I look back on my own experience and ask the very basic question: What led me to pursue a degree in mechanical engineering when I was an undergraduate in college? I didn't make that decision when I was a freshman in college. I didn't even make that decision to pursue interests in math and science when I was in high school. I would argue for most students it happens in sixth and seventh and eighth grade. They realize they have an interest in math and science. More often than not it is because they have had a strong, credible, inspirational teacher in math and science, and my experience is no different. Jane Batts and Blake Richards, my math and science teachers in fourth and fifth grade, I think set me on that path that ultimately brought me to a mechanical engineering degree. So if we are going to look at educational programs that are meant to inspire students in math and science, they had better be focused on those key years: sixth, seventh, and eighth grade.

Finally – this is a point that Senator Coburn was speaking to – we need to look at the programs that are already in place and ask honest questions about how effective they are. How many do we have that deal with these areas of math and science education? How many do we have that deal with the areas of research? And, in particular, I think we should look to the work done by the American Competitiveness Council.

What they found is that in the areas of science, technology, education – science, technology, engineering and mathematics – stem programs – there are 106 different programs within 8 or 10 different agencies, including the Department of Transportation, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Energy, the Department of Homeland Security, 35 at the National Science Foundation, 12 at the Department of Agriculture.

In this legislation before us we do ourselves a disservice if we don't look at these programs and ask the questions: How effective are these programs? How can they be improved? How can they become more focused or better focused on inspiring those young students? As the American Competitiveness Council looked at these programs, they came up with a series of recommendations and findings. They made that very argument: that there was overlap in these science, technology, engineering, and math educational programs; that communication and coordination among agencies could be improved; and that current programs tended to be focused on short-term support rather than longer term impact. Those are the very findings we should be trying to implement and execute as part of this legislation, but I don't see it in the underlying bill.

So the amendments I have focus on, first, the overlap and duplication and lack of focus within those educational programs, to try to strengthen them, measure their effect, and ensure that they have a greater impact on those students; and, second, to make sure we are appropriately focused on basic, fundamental research within the National Science Foundation, and that we are maintaining its independence, and that we ensure the peer review process is what determines how and where funds are allocated.

I know we are working on an agreement on the Senate floor, so I am not able to offer my amendment at the moment, but let me speak to what it attempts to do. I have an amendment that strikes section 4002 of this legislation. Section 4002 does two things within the National Science Foundation that I think set the wrong precedent.

First, it establishes a set-aside, a minimum allocation for educational and human resources within the National Science Foundation of $1.05 billion. I recognize the educational initiatives within the National Science Foundation are important, but I certainly can't say, and I don't think any Member of the Senate can say, whether $1.05 billion is exactly the right number. But more important, we shouldn't be mandating in law that the National Science Foundation direct a specific amount of money to any area. We should, to the greatest of our ability, allow those decisions to be set on a yearly basis by the experts and the leadership of the National Science Foundation. If we think they are not doing a good job, they should probably be replaced. But they are hired specifically because they have the best and most advanced understanding of what our needs are, what the most valuable areas of research are, and what the best kinds of partnerships might be for education related to physics, chemistry, mathematics, and material science. So I would strike that set-aside, not because we don't think any money should be going to this area – of course, money should be going to this area – but because it is a dangerous precedent for legislators to start carving up pieces of the National Science Foundation for specific initiatives.

Second, this particular section of the legislation mandates – it requires – that there be a specific percentage increase in this one particular area each year between now and 2011. While I don't know whether that percentage increase will turn out to be the right amount or the wrong amount over the next several years, I think it is a bad precedent to require as part of the legislation that a designated portion of money go to any of the specific areas supported by the National Science Foundation. Once we move away from the peer review process, once we move away from independence within the National Science Foundation to allocate funds as the leadership there sees fit, then I think we run the risk of undermining the great strength that the National Science Foundation has represented over the past several years.

I began speaking about doubling resources for the National Science Foundation four or five years ago because it has been so successful in providing resources for basic research in key areas of physical sciences, and I am extremely concerned that if we adopt the provisions of section 4002 and start carving out pieces we think are politically popular at a particular point in time, we will dramatically undermine its effectiveness and have the unintended consequence of weakening the organization's ability to inspire the next generation of engineers and scientists.

I look forward to offering these amendments at the appropriate time, and I thank you, Madam President, for the time this afternoon. I yield the floor.

# # #