Frist Re-introduces Federal Research Investment Act in Senate

The Federal Research Investment Act, an authorization bill to double civilian federal R&D funding over 12 years, was introduced in the 106th session of Congress by Senator Bill Frist (R-TN) on January 22. Last year, the bill (formerly S. 2217, now S. 296) passed the Senate by unanimous consent in October, but never made it through the House or to the President’s desk (see FYI #143, 1998 ).

In the last session of Congress, the bill was introduced with eight original sponsors. Thanks in part to significant support and urging from the scientific community, the bill had a bipartisan total of 34 sponsors by the time it passed the Senate. This time, the bill starts its journey with 20 sponsors: Bill Frist, Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Pete Domenici (R-NM), Joe Lieberman (D-CT), Phil Gramm (R-TX), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Conrad Burns (R-MT), John Breaux (D-LA), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Max Cleland (D-GA), Fred Thompson (R-TN), John Kerry (D-MA), Mike DeWine (R-OH), Bob Kerrey (D-NE), Spencer Abraham (R-MI), Daniel Akaka (D-HI), Wayne Allard (R-CO), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Pat Roberts (R-KS), and Chuck Robb (D-VA).

New sponsors this year are Kerrey and Allard. Three of last year’s sponsors did not win re-election: Alfonse D’Amato (R-NY), Carol Moseley-Braun (D-IL), and Lauch Faircloth (R-NC). The other thirteen who supported the bill last year but have not signed on yet this year are: Daniel Moynihan (D-NY), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Christopher Dodd (D-CT), John Ashcroft (R-MO), Thad Cochran (R- MS), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), John Warner (R-VA), Rick Santorum (R- PA), Paul Sarbanes (D-MD), Paul Coverdell (R-GA), and Carl Levin (D-MI).

Of course, for the bill to become law, the House must pass a similar bill, the two chambers must agree upon a final version, and the President must sign it. There are indications that a companion bill may be introduced in the House, but this has not yet occurred. Even if the bill becomes law, doubling of the R&D budget is not a certainty. As an authorization bill, S. 296 can provide guidance to appropriators, but does not provide any actual dollars.

In introducing the bill, Frist, Rockefeller and Domenici expressed views on the importance of science funding to the nation, the rapid growth of NIH funding, and the need to support a broader spectrum of scientific disciplines as well as areas of interdisciplinary overlap. Excerpts from their speeches follow:

FRIST: “I rise today to introduce legislation that would elevate Congress’ commitment to technological innovation and long-term economic growth. The Federal Research Investment Act specifically targets federally-funded, civilian research and development (R&D), while establishing greater accountability mechanisms for both Congress and the White House. The bill would bolster the aggregate amount of federal funding for R&D over an 11-year period.”

“The National Institutes of Health (NIH) received the largest dollar increase in history in the fiscal year (FY) 1999 federal budget.... NIH’s overwhelming support by Congress reflects a growing popular movement both in the Senate and House to double funding for NIH over the next five years. Many of my colleagues, eager to fund the biotechnology that enables our citizens to live longer, more healthy lives, are embracing this crusade. I believe, however, many of them are missing the critical link that exists between the breakthrough advances we are experiencing today and what has enabled them to occur. The funding surge of R&D in the sciences in the 1960’s created a wealth of research opportunities for scientists throughout the nation. Since that time though, funding has declined steadily with no hint of a reversal of that downward trend. If we are to dedicate ourselves to advancement of biotechnology and all the benefits that it will afford, we must support it with solid funding for the basic sciences. One truly depends upon the other. And that critical link, I believe, has been lost in the revolution of health care policy.”

ROCKEFELLER: “One only needs to look as far as the front page of the newspaper to see the effect of high-technology on our country.... What I am afraid of is that many people are not aware that these products do not simply appear out of nowhere. They are the result of a basis of knowledge which has been built up by researchers supported by federal funding. American companies pull from this knowledge base in order to develop the latest high-tech products which you and I read about in the paper and see on our store shelves every day.... I view this knowledge base as a bank. The U.S. government puts in modest amounts of funding in the form of support for scientific research. The payback comes from the economic growth which is produced as this knowledge is turned into actual products by American companies.”

“Just three years ago, federal science funding was in a serious decline and fewer than half a dozen Members of Congress gave it any attention, but now as a significant consequence of both S. 1305 and S. 2217 the trend, at least in the last two years, seems to have reversed and a universal spirit of cooperation for strong R&D funding is developing on all fronts. In the last two years the science budget has increased above inflation. In particular, for Fiscal Year 1999, an unprecedented 10 percent increase in civilian R&D funding was appropriated. Yet, we appear to be in a crisis situation once again due to unexpected budgetary constraints resulting from last year’s appropriations. Thus, we need to continue our fight to implement the R&D budgetary guidelines in our bill. This uncertainty in the level of R&D funding from year to year can be as detrimental to the health of the scientific enterprise as a lack of adequate funding levels. It will be a sad day for our nation, and its future economic prosperity, if we manage to lose what progress we have made to date.”

DOMENICI: “This bill emphasizes a broad range of research targets, from fundamental and frontier exploration, through pre- competitive engineering research. This emphasis on a spectrum of research maturity is absolutely critical. The nation is not well served by a focus on so-called ‘basic’ research that can open new fields, but then leave those fields without resources to develop new ideas to a pre-competitive stage applicable to future commercial products and processes.

“The new bill addresses a spectrum of research fields with its emphasis on expanding S&T funding in many agencies. We need technical advances in many fields simultaneously. In more and more cases, the best new ideas are not flowing from explorations in a single narrow field, but instead are coming from inter- disciplinary studies that bring experts from diverse fields together for fruitful collaboration. This is especially evident in medical and health fields, where combinations of medical science with many other specialities are critical to the latest health care advances.”