Vernon Ehlers

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. The key point is this: when we analyze what is causing our economic boom of the past few years, the first major cause is monetary policy, which has largely been headed by Alan Greenspan; next is tax and regulatory policy, where the Republicans in the Congress have made tremendous improvements; and the final and very vital cause is scientific research. If we analyze the economic development taking place today we will find that over half of all economic development is directly related to scientific research, whether it is the Internet, whether it is medical research, any of the other research projects going on. Dr. Bromley's thesis is very simple. He says: no science, no surplus. Why? Because the economic boom we are enjoying now, which has resulted in the first surpluses in the Federal Government since 1969, is to a large extent caused by the scientific research that has been done in the last 2 to 4 decades. If we do not continue to do that research, we are doing a grave disservice to our children and grandchildren, because we are condemning them to a United States which will not have as much economic growth and which will not have the resources and the surplus which will enable them to enjoy a good economy as we enjoy it today. Mr. Speaker, I advocate very strongly that we review the appropriations bills that have passed the House and are before the Senate, and that we make every effort to increase the funding for scientific research. As it stands now, NASA science is slashed by $678 million; science of the Department of Energy is cut by $116 million; and the National Science Foundation ends up with $275 million less than requested. I think it extremely important that we review these bills and that we increase funding for scientific research so that we may continue to enjoy not only the results of the research, but also the economic benefits that will arise from the fruits of that research.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise and discuss the issue of scientific research in the United States and the impact that it has on our economy. The reason I do this is because there currently is an underfunding of scientific research in the budget proposals we have before us and in the appropriations bills which we have passed. I would like to review why that is dangerous for our Nation and why we must increase our spending on scientific research. Let me first back up a year or two. A previous speaker, Mr. Gingrich, had a keen interest in science and technology and asked the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner, chairman of the Committee on Science, to give me the responsibility of reviewing science and technology policy in the United States Government and make recommendations for improvement. After all, the previous study had been done by Vannevar Bush in 1945 and, although it was outstanding, it is clearly out of date. There has been some excellent science policy work done recently by individuals outside of the government, but our government had not done anything official in that direction. As a result of our work, after holding a considerable number of hearings, working hand-in-glove with the Speaker and with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), we were able to produce a new science policy report. It has just come out in paperback, and it has been very well received by the scientific community. It makes a number of arguments for the importance of scientific research in our Nation and explains what we should do in the way of Federal funding. I believe the recommendations are well founded and should be followed. I would also like to briefly display the number of letters I received just in the past few weeks from leaders of scientific associations protesting the lack of funding in this year's budget. I have a letter, for example, from Jerry Friedman, President of the American Physical Society; from the American Association for the Advancement of Science; American Association of Engineering Societies; American Astronomical Society; American Ceramic Society; American Chemical Society; American Electronics Associations, which represents one of the bigger industries in our Nation; American Geological Institute; American Institute of Biological Sciences, the Chemical Engineers, the Mathematical Society, et cetera, all expressing the great concern in the scientific world about this particular issue. Similarly, there was an op-ed piece in the Washington Post just a week ago by Allan Bromley, outstanding physicist and former presidential science advisor, who has been a leader in the scientific community for many years. The title of his article is No Science and No Surplus, and I would like to at this point enter that into the Record. [From the Washington Post, August 26, 1999] No Science, No Surplus (By D. Allan Bromley) America is on a roll. We're balancing the federal budget, reforming welfare and making retirement secure. Sound like a breakthrough in fiscal management? Not exactly. Our awesome economic success can be traced directly to our past investments in science. The problem is, this year's federal budget for science is a disaster, and it compromises our nation's economic and social progress. Here are the latest budget numbers: NASA science is slashed by $678 million; science at the Department of Energy is cut by $116 million; and the National Science Foundation ends up with $275 million less than the president requested. Clearly, Congress has lost sight of the critical role science plays in America. Federal investments in science pay off--they produce cutting-edge ideas and a highly skilled work force. The ideas and personnel then feed into high-tech industries to drive the U.S. economy. It's a straightforward relationship: Industry is attentive to immediate market pressures; the federal government makes the venturous investments in university-based research that ensures long-term competitiveness. So far, it's been a powerful tandem. Thirty years ago, the laser and fiber optic cable were born from federal investments in university research. Over time, those two discoveries formed the backbone of a multi-billion- dollar telecommunications industry. The fusion of university research and industrial development now generates about 5,000 new jobs and contributes a quarter-billion dollars in taxes to the federal coffer every day. It accounts for 70 percent of our economic growth. The result is undeniable. The fusion is primarily responsible for our booming economy and our growing federal surplus. So the consequences of a budget cut to science are equally undeniable: no science, no surplus. The benefits of the science investment go deeper than just the surplus. Three years ago this month, welfare underwent dramatic reform. No one knew what the fallout from that would be. But the high-tech economy eased the burden. Unemployment was dropping to a 25-year low, and jobs were being created at a record pace. As it turned out, half of those jobs were generated by the high-tech sector. The legislative challenge before us is patching up Social Security. Again, we'll rely on the science and technology juggernaut. Whether the solution lies in stimulating private investment or in steady federal surpluses, the proposals all rely on a familiar friend--the strength of our nation's booming economy. And while Congress dithers, the public already is taking steps of its own. Americans hold more than $5 trillion in communications and technology stocks. Our mutual funds, our 401K plans and IRAs are stuffed full of high-tech investments. The retirement security of Americans now depends upon the steady flow of innovations from technology companies. In turn, those companies rely on the steady flow of discoveries and trained work force generated by the scientific community. No science, no savings. Scientific research at our universities and national labs is now a foundation of the economy and thereby vital to the success of social legislation. But rather than reinforcing the foundation, Congress is eroding it. That action couldn't come at a worse time. America's science infrastructure is in decay--aged science buildings on our campuses, dated laboratory equipment, antiquated computers. During the Bush administration, the Office of Science and Technology Policy estimated the cost of rebuilding our science infrastructure at $100 billion. The Clinton administration has done little to address the problem. The budget Congress is proposing guarantees continued decay. Congress must significantly increase science funding. Senators recognized the need last week when, with the support of Sens. Trent Lott and Tom Daschle, they passed the Federal Research Investment Act, which calls for doubling the federal investment in science by the year 2010. But appropriators haven't followed through. It's not too late--budgets won't be settled until October. For the sake of the country, I hope Congress will recognize the significant role science plays in society. Without science, there won't be a surplus.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 405, I missed the vote due to flight delays on two successive United Airlines flights. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to comment to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) that the $8.5 million increase he indicated is in the research and related activities line item, and that increase was wiped out by the Nadler amendment which was adopted yesterday. So we are now down to zero increase there; and, in fact, the overall NSF budget, because of the decreases in major research equipment and education and human resources funding, is reduced a net 1 percent in this appropriation bill at this point. I do thank him for his assurances that he will seek to correct this as we go through the process, and I pledge to help him. Mr. Chairman, on that note, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. EHLERS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the assurances of the subcommittee chairman. I do want to comment on one factor he alluded to.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to increase the appropriations for the National Science Foundation. I must begin by commending the subcommittee chairman in dealing with a very difficult budget and commend him for the good work he has done on it. I was opposed to the allocation given to this subcommittee. I felt at the time it was granted that it was far too small, and we would end up with the type of difficulties we have encountered here. It is my hope that during the rest of the appropriations process this allocation will be increased. What I wish to point out here, and it is extremely important, is the importance of scientific research to the future economic growth of this Nation as well as furthering basic knowledge of our universe and all that it contains. Furthermore, I want to discuss the importance of science and math education in this Nation. Let me point out some of the problems. I have here a graph which shows that United States funding has been decreasing compared to some other countries. The national nondefense R&D as a percentage of gross domestic product is now lower in this Nation than it is in Japan and Germany, and the rate at which Japan is increasing is greater than our rate. The main difficulty of this is that, as is currently estimated, over half of the economic development of this Nation comes from developments resulting from research in science and technology, and if we do not do this research in science and technology, we are ruining the seed corn for our future economic growth; we are also doing a great disservice to our children and grandchildren by doing that. Let me give a few examples. The Internet is, of course, one obvious result which rose out of basic research in math, computer science, electronics and physics over the past several decades. Everyone today knows how valuable the Internet is and how it is contributing to economic growth. Another example is magnetic resonance imaging, which has its roots back in the 1950s when I was a graduate student in physics at the University of California. Today we cannot imagine dealing with many difficult health problems without an MRI machine. Also consider lasers, again a development based on research done 40 years ago, resulting in a multi, multi-billion dollar industry developed from a small amount of research funding. In summary, we must continue our research efforts if we are going to maintain our economic growth and continue to be a world leader. Furthermore, the funding for major research equipment has been cut in this budget, and that is very unfortunate because this funding provides the tools with which scientists make discoveries. Now on to math and science education; that is a sad tale. A few years ago, we completed the third international mathematics science study and found that the United States is near the bottom of all the developed countries in the ability of its high-school graduates to understand and use math and science. Near the bottom! And yet we maintain that we are the leader of the world in science and technology. Our potential for the future is hurt very badly by not having an adequate math and science education system. Once again, the National Science Foundation plays a major role in improving our education, and we have to provide them funds for that. My amendment does not seek extravagant funding, it simply brings the NSF budget up to the level which has been recommended by the Committee on Science in the authorization bill that it has passed. That is certainly reasonable. However, the appropriation bill before us actually reduces the amount of money going to the National Science Foundation, the first time in decades that the National Science Foundation budget will be reduced. My amendment will bring it up to an appropriate level, and I would very much like to see this amendment adopted. At the same time, as I have indicated, I recognize the difficulty the chairman of the subcommittee has had in reaching appropriate funding levels for the National Science Foundation. Therefore I do not plan to pursue this amendment at this point, but I would like to engage the chairman in a very brief interchange. My intent is to withdraw this amendment, but I would certainly appreciate it if the chairman would first recognize the worthy direction this amendment outlines. I know that he would like to increase the funding of the National Science Foundation, and I hope that he can give us assurances that, as we go through the appropriations process, not only in the House but also in the Senate, the conference committee and negotiating with the White House, he will consider this request. I would very much appreciate an expression of support on the part of the subcommittee chairman that he will seek to meet the goals I have outlined in my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment dealing with the problem on the Great Lakes, and I thank the chairman for all he has done on the Great Lakes in this legislation. Notably, the committee has funded the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory at last year's level after the administration cut it in their budget submission, and we appreciate the chairman's action on that. In May of this year, NOAA's National Ocean Service proposed the elimination of 13 of 49 water level gauging stations on the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River system. These stations provide valuable water level data used by several different agencies and institutions to predict water levels and monitor water flows at specific points in the lakes. I am proposing an amendment that would increase NOAA's operation budget by $390,000 to upgrade these stations and ensure that they will continue to provide valuable research data. Due to record-low water levels in the Great Lakes, it is more important than ever to maintain a monitoring network for research into the hydrologic cycles in the Great Lakes Basin. The downsizing was prompted by the need to upgrade and automate these stations, which NOAA claims could not be accomplished within the existing operational budget constraints. Several agencies, including the Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratories, and the International Joint Commission, which is currently conducting a year-long study of water levels on the Great Lakes, objected to the closure of these stations. Several of the affected stations provide key comparisons for the long-term record of water levels, and many stations located in connecting channels provide key information on water transfer between the lakes. Local communities would be the most severely affected by the loss of data from stations located at upstream sites. For example, Lake Erie water levels are most directly affected by the rate of water flow through the Detroit and St. Clair Rivers. This is a very important issue in the Great Lakes. I appreciate all the chairman has done. I understand that he also looks favorably upon this amendment. I hope that is correct, and, if so, we can bring this debate to a rapid conclusion.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I am very sympathetic to the problems of ergonomics. That may not be a statement that my colleagues have heard too much from this side of the aisle, but I am sympathetic for reasons relating to the ailments I have encountered, and I will amplify on that during debate later on. At the same time, I still support this bill, because I have learned that the issues revolving around some of the things I have had, including a herniated disk in my back, and surgery for that; carpal tunnel syndrome, with surgery on both hands for that; and chronic asthma, I have learned that all of these issues are extremely complex as related to the workplace. These issues are so complex that it is important that we do the National Academy study. I want to make certain that we do it not because we are trying to delay the issue or somehow avoid the issue, I think it is important to wait until the National Academy study is finished simply because we should have the result of the National Academy study before any final decisions are made on precisely what we should do, and what the best approach is regarding ergonomics. So I support the bill. I think it is very important that we do take the time to deal with the complexities of the issue, make certain that whatever we decide in this body or through the regulatory agencies is the appropriate approach, the right way to deal with the problem, so that we actually come up with good solutions rather than just have individuals sitting at desks saying, well, this makes sense, let us do this, let us do that, let us try this. We have to make certain we do it right. So I urge you to vote for this bill, demonstrate our ability to be patient and study the complexities of the issue before taking action.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned earlier, I am somewhat sympathetic to this because of my experience with a serious back problem, a lumbar laminectomy and carpal tunnel surgery. At the same time, when I asked where these came from, did they come from the workplace, I am not engaged in heavy lifting, unless I am dealing with heavy issues on the floor; or did it come from my history of driving a 30-foot semi trailer truck when I was younger? Again, the answers are not clear. My carpal tunnel injury, did it come from repetitive motion? No. I rarely engage in repetitive motion with my hands. My point simply is that these are very, very complex issues. That is why Congress asked for and provided funding for the National Academy of Sciences study, because of the continuing controversy of the medical and scientific questions relating to ergonomics. There are other issues here, other than separating out what happens at home, such as what are the effective treatments? For example, I wore wrist splints for my carpal tunnel surgery. Did it help? It turned out to be more important to wear them at night than during the day when I was at work. I think one of the key factors that we need is education on this issue. As my wife commented to me after I had back surgery, and I studied the problems involved with backs, if we had known all this beforehand, we could have prevented it, and that is exactly true. Preventative medicine is the answer, in many cases. That involves education, it involves accommodation to the problems that individuals have. Something else I have heard commonly during this debate is the need for sound science. As a scientist, I find this amusing. Sometimes people saying that really means they want science that supports their opinion, rather than really what people mean by sound science. Nevertheless, we do need that in this case, but also we need a good dose of plain, ordinary common sense in designing regulations and meeting the needs of the workplace, and particularly ensuring that our workers do not suffer. I support the bill, but I also want to make clear, I support efforts to provide proper ergonomic controls in the workplace.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 354, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted, ``yea.''

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time. In the latter half of this century, the profligate spending habits of the Congress and the Federal Government drove the total Federal debt from less than $250 billion to an astounding $5.5 trillion. But now, because recent Congresses have been able to impose some fiscal discipline on the Federal budget during this period of strong economic growth, we enjoy the good fortune of operating under a surplus. Simply stated, having a surplus means that we are extracting from the taxpayers more money than is required to fund the operation of the Federal Government. That means we must refund part of this surplus back to the taxpayers through a tax cut. But prudence also dictates that we use part of this surplus to pay down the debt that was irresponsibly run up by previous Congresses. I am grateful that the chairman has agreed to insert my debt reduction amendment into this bill. With my amendment in place, we will accomplish both of our goals, tax refunds and debt reduction. The language of my amendment sets this Congress on a course to reduce the amount of publicly held debt from $3.6 trillion in fiscal year 1999 to $1.6 trillion in fiscal year 2009, a reduction of over 55 percent in 10 years. As a result, the annual interest costs of this publicly held debt will drop from $230 billion this year to about $100 billion in 2009. That is a huge savings. Putting it in simpler terms, reducing the debt and interest this much will put $700 dollars more per year back in the pockets of each American taxpayer. While it took over half a century to run up this debt, we are committed to cutting it by more than half in the next decade. Surely, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, some of them whom were here when their party presided over the accumulation of this debt, cannot protest with too much credibility that this rate of payoff is insufficient. I urge the Congress to vote for debt reduction and smaller interest payments. Vote for this bill.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York and the gentleman from New Jersey for their hard work on this bill, and in particular, I would like to thank them for their support of the need for increased scientific and technological expertise at the U.S. State Department. Within the Manager's amendment before us today, Mr. Gilman has included a provision to address this need by establishing within the office of the Under Secretary for Global Affairs a Science and Technology Adviser to the Secretary of State. This new position is critical to avoiding communication gaps and missed opportunities for international scientific cooperation and protection of U.S. technology interests as it will allow the Secretary direct access to qualified technical analysis and advice. Science and technology are no longer isolated issues that require insight only as specific questions arise within the global community. Rather, the global community, and its economy, are increasingly tied to the commerce, trade, and health of its member countries through advances in information technology, biotechnology, the pharmaceutical industry, and questions regarding the environment. Furthermore, an increasing number of scientific projects are of such substantial size and expense, that they must be undertaken as collaborative projects among nations if they are to be pushed. Last year, during hearings conducted by the House Science Committee in conjunction with its work on the Science Policy Study, our most unanimous and emphatic testimony came from witnesses discussing the state of science and technology in our foreign relations. Several witnesses referenced a 1992 Carnegie Commission report entitled Science and Technology in U.S. International Affairs that stated that ``Overall, U.S. international relations have suffered from the absence of a long-term, balanced strategy for issues at the intersection of science and technology with foreign affairs. Sometimes this absence of analysis and policy leads to unpreparedness for major issues, bitter interagency disputes, and inadequate last-minute preparations for an international meeting.'' However, as Bruce Alberts, the President of the National Academy of Sciences, states in his testimony, the State department is taking steps to address this void by requesting the National Research Council ``undertake a study on the contributions that science, technology and health can make to foreign policy and to make recommendations on how the department might better carry out its responsibilities to that end.'' This study is due to be completed in September, and one of the prescribed duties of the new Science and Technology Adviser will be to assist the Secretary of State in developing a report to submit to Congress describing plans for implementation of the Research Council's recommendations, as appropriate. By including this provision to establish a Science and Technology Adviser within the American Embassy Security Act, Congress will lend its support to those in the State Department who are already taking steps to improve the integration of science and technology within our foreign policy. I appreciate Mr. Gilman's support on this issue, and believe that the entire nation will benefit from this measure to better represent American knowledge, science and technological assets to our international partners.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt). I would say to the gentleman from California, it is my understanding that the en bloc amendment being offered today makes modifications to the committee-reported bill in which local educational agencies would have been required to expend the same amount of funds on math and science as they were required to spend under the consolidated Eisenhower Special Development Program. Under the Eisenhower program, localities had to spend their portion of the first $250 million of funds appropriated under this program for math and science. I understand the gentleman's amendment increases this amount.

Mr. EHLERS. In light of this information, Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman from California agree to explore ways in which to ensure that local districts maintain a strong focus on the needs of math and science programs, and continue to expend the approximately $300 million they were reported to have expended on these programs last year?

Mr. EHLERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. EHLERS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey. (Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to address the House regarding a bill which we will be discussing this morning and this afternoon, the Teacher Empowerment Act. This is going to be one of the most important bills we consider this Congress, because our purpose here is to ensure that our children receive a good education. As important part of that is going to be a good education in science and mathematics. That is especially important for the future of our Nation. As my colleagues probably know, we are not currently doing well in science education in the United States. Compared to other developed countries, we are near the bottom. That has to change. Part of this bill will ensure that our teachers' abilities to teach math and science will be enhanced and increased. I can think of no better way of securing America's future than to vote for this bill, and thus improve the educational system of the United States, particularly with regard to mathematics and science education.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. EHLERS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. EHLERS. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments and his willingness to consider this issue. Not only are other states hoping to tap into Great Lakes Water, but other countries are also seeking to tap into this supply and hope to ship water out of the Great Lakes to fulfill their own water needs. It is very important for us to maintain the purity of this water, make certain that it remains in this country, is used properly, and remains drinkable for our population. I thank the gentleman for his comments. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, the gist of this amendment is to fund an authorization which was adopted last year by the Congress and has been signed into law by the President. I am speaking at this point on behalf of the Great Lakes. I recognize the work of the chairman of this committee, who has been very supportive of these efforts. I also recognize the activities of the chairman of the Committee of the Whole House, who has instituted some legislation in this regard. And, in fact, this amendment is an attempt to fund some activities that were sponsored by the chairman of the Committee of the Whole House. Many Americans fail to recognize the significance of the Great Lakes. They constitute 20 percent of the world's fresh water. They constitute 95 percent of the United States' fresh surface water. They contain six quadrillion gallons of fresh water. I find it ironic that this country has spent hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars, in fact, billions of dollars developing dams and other waterways in the West to provide fresh water and yet we often are stingy in providing funding for the Great Lakes, which is the greatest freshwater system in the world. Last year, Congress unanimously passed and the President signed into law the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act which reauthorized the original 1990 act. This act provides for the continuation of the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife coordination offices, which are very important to the entire Great Lakes basin but importantly, as it relates to this amendment, the act creates a new grants program for implementation of fish and wildlife restoration projects. This structure provides a unique opportunity for enhancing coordination of restoration activities in the Great Lakes region, leveraging funds for restoration efforts and making real progress on the highest priority restoration activities needed in the region. Enthusiasm for getting the program off to a rapid start is high in the region. In fact, interested parties have already drafted several proposals for the grant program, and the Council of Lake Committees has begun discussion of priorities. I understand that no new grant programs were funded in this bill due to the tight budget cap and the chairman's desire to create a fair Interior appropriations bill. I also understand full well the difficulty of the appropriations process while in particular the difficulty the subcommittee chairman faced in trying to deal with this appropriations process while remaining within the caps in the 302(b) allocations. I have a great deal of respect for the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Regula. Because of that respect, I do not plan to pursue this amendment but plan to withdraw it. However, I did want to offer the amendment and debate it so that, if additional funds become available later in the appropriations process, the chairman and the subcommittee will look kindly upon funding this particular grant program. The amount of money is $422,000, which is relatively small compared to the total of the bill, and I believe it would go a great distance toward renewing the restoration efforts in the Great Lakes. It will provide sufficient funds to leverage a great deal of State money to be put into this effort. I would appreciate any comments the chairman might make upon this issue before I officially withdraw it.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) for yielding and congratulate him for organizing this particular discussion. Everyone knows what a tremendous asset the National Institutes of Health has been to our Nation. It is truly one of the jewels of the research effort within this nation. I appreciate the gentleman yielding time for this particular discussion and for the comments that I have to make, because I wish to broaden the discussion, not just from the National Institutes of Health and their dependence upon biological knowledge but some of the background for that knowledge and where it comes from and how that relates to our research efforts today. As we have heard, biological knowledge is in the midst of an explosion that is generating tremendous advances in our knowledge and technological capabilities, and particularly in developments for health care. Specifically, we are making very rapid progress in the tools that we have at our disposal for the treatment of disease and other medical afflictions. The National Institutes of Health has, to a large extent, been our steward through this astounding growth phase of the life sciences. The leadership at NIH has been deliberate and patient in its investment in fundamental research projects which have matured to produce knowledge we can use to improve diagnostic tests, choose more effective treatments or even design new drugs to target specific diseases. With the completion of the Human Genome Project, we may soon move toward a medical environment where particular forms of disease are treated with therapies customized to an individual's genetic makeup and clinical manifestations. However, the NIH has not been the only supporter of such novel and groundbreaking research. Nor has biomedical science been the sole source of our medical advances. In fact, the recent surge in biological research has evolved through a synergistic relationship between all scientists, and that is the point I wish to make this evening. As a physicist, for example, I can point to a number of contributions from my field that have enhanced our biomedical capabilities in the laboratory and the doctor's office. Significantly, the medical applications of these projects were not foreseen at the time they were funded and that illustrates the importance of supporting and sponsoring basic research, which eventually does result in such beneficial effects to the human race. As an example, the discovery of x-rays, which is a curiosity over 100 years ago when discovered by Rsntgen, as we know x-rays have tremendous medical applications today. It is hard to find any one of us who has not had numerous x-rays. At the same time, what many of us do not know is that x-ray crystallography, which allows us to examine the details of protein structure as well as electromicroscopy, which allows us to look inside the cell and its working components, the organelles, both have been extremely important in also helping improve health care and diagnosis and treatment. I have also described on the floor before another important tool, that is, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, MRI, which is a fascinating development because it shows the importance of basic research in very esoteric fields of physics. In this particular case, nuclear magnetic resonance developed in the early 1950s, resulting in Nobel prizes for Ed Purcell and Felix Bloch, was a completely esoteric field, of interest only to those studying nuclear structure. It allows us to measure nuclear magnetic moments, electric quadrupole moments, as well as nuclear spins. Another esoteric development at that time was developing data gathering and analysis techniques for discovering elementary particles in physics, totally unrelated esoteric fields within physics and yet they combine to result in MRI, which is the most advanced and superb diagnostic tool we have available today and certainly essential to the work done at NIH in other areas. Beyond physics and chemistry, biology is dependent upon seemingly unrelated fields to support its growth. A prime example today is computer science. Digital analysis of tissue samples, rapid dissemination of information, both in the form of raw data between scientists and education information for public health uses, data bank compilation and analysis, and biological modeling programs, are all examples of how progress in biomedical research is sustained by growth in other scientific disciplines. As was recommended in the Science Policy Report prepared by the Committee on Science last fall, adopted by them, and then adopted by this House as H. Res. 578, the Federal Government has an irreplaceable role to play in the Nation's basic research endeavors through stable and substantial funding reports. I just want to make certain that everyone understands we have a responsibility to ensure that our cumulative research portfolio is balanced among the various disciplines, and I support Dr. Harold Varmus for his fine work in this and his recognition of our dependence upon many other sciences. I'd like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding time to me to participate in this important discussion of the research priorities facing our nation as we enter the 21st century. As we have heard, biological knowledge is in the midst of an explosion that is generating tremendous advances in our knowledge and technological capabilities. Specifically, we are making rapid progress in the tools that we have at our disposal for the treatment of disease and other medical afflictions. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has, to a large extent, been our steward through this astounding growth phase in the life sciences. The leadership at NIH has been deliberate and patient in its investment in fundamental research projects which have matured to produce knowledge we can use to improve diagnostic tests, choose more effective treatments, or even design new drugs to target specific diseases. With the completion of the Human Genome Project, we may soon move toward a medical environment where particular forms of disease are treated with therapies customized to an individual's genetic make-up and clinical manifestations. However, the NIH has not been the only supporter of such novel and groundbreaking research. Nor has biomedical science been the sole source of our medical advances. In fact, the recent surge in biological research has evolved through a synergistic relationship of all the sciences. As a physicist, I can point to several contributions from my field that have enhanced our biomedical capabilities in the laboratory and the doctor's office. Significantly, the medical applications of these projects were not foreseen at the time they were funded. I have described one of these tools to you on this floor before, that of Magnetic Resonance Imaging--a result of studies in nuclear and particle physics--crystallography, which allows us to examine the details of protein structure, and electron microscopy, which allows us to look inside the cell at its working components, the organelles. Beyond physics and chemistry, biology is dependent upon other seemingly unrelated fields to support its growth. A prime example today is computer science. Digital analysis of tissue samples, rapid dissemination of information (both in the form of raw data between scientists and education information for public health nurses), data bank compilation and analysis, and biological modeling programs are all examples of how progress in biomedical research is sustained by growth in other scientific disciplines. As recommended in the Science Policy Report released by the Committee on Science last fall, and adopted by this body as H. Res. 578, the Federal Government has an irreplaceable role to play in the Nation's basic research endeavors through stable and substantial funding support. However, we also have a responsibility to ensure that our cumulative research portfolio is balanced among the disciplines to sustain the overall health of our research investment. I would like to close with a quote from Dr. Harold Varmus, the Director of NIH. Speaking at the Centennial Meeting of the American Physical Society this past March, Dr. Varmus stated that ``one of [his] convictions about medical research [was] that the NIH can wage an effective war on disease only if we--as a nation and a scientific community, not just a single agency--harness the energies of many disciplines, not just biology and medicine.'' I agree with Dr. Varmus, and I also agree with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) and my other colleagues. We should capitalize on the advances which our past research investments are yielding in the health-related fields by increasing funding, but we must do so responsibly. We must not sacrifice today's fundamental research projects for quick advances in one field. Rather, we should concurrently nurture today's biomedical success while investing in tomorrow's unknown promises.