Arguments of Leading Conservatives in Support of R&D Infrastructure Investments

There will continue to be increasing federal dollars invested into research and technology. The taxpayers of Arizona need to participate in seeing a return on those investments. Conservatives elsewhere battle to get significant dollars appropriated, confident that their home state is prepared to compete.

• Conservative members of the U.S. House and Senate and officials in other states recognize that there is a national payoff for research investments – and are also fully cognizant that the economic benefits are maximized by the state where this research occurs and businesses are spun off.

United States Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS):
“If you do not have the basic research or the basic infrastructure to support that research, you do not go ahead with the technology you need to keep the best and brightest at home and provide employment opportunities. It’s as simple as that.” (July 11, 2002)

United States Senator James Sensenbrenner (R-WI)
Basic Science research is the engine of increased productivity for the American economy. Basic science research means more exports which means more jobs for the people of Wisconsin.” (July 11, 2002)

• It is in our national interest to invest in R&D and science education which is critical for our national security.

Newt Gingrich:
“the danger from under-investing in science and in math and science education was greater than he danger of any conceivable conventional war.” (May 22, 2002)

• Investment into higher education and infrastructure will help ensure economic growth for Arizona.

Alan Greenspan:
“In a global environment in which prospects for economic growth now depend importantly on a country's capacity to develop and apply new technologies, the research facilities of our universities are world class. The payoffs--in terms of the flow of expertise, new products, and start-up companies, for example--have been impressive. With the emergence of significant centers of commercial innovation and entrepreneurship --Silicon Valley, the Research Triangle, and the clustering of biotech enterprises in the Northeast corridor--creative ideas flow freely between local academic scholars and those in industry. Those ventures that succeeded have materially added to our base of knowledge. But even those that failed, as many did, left residual insights that may spark future research.” (October 29, 2002)

Arizona State University has a shortage of “world class” research facility space. We feel strongly that the state needs to make these investments in order to maximize the linkages between “academic scholars and those in industry” as praised by Greenspan.

Ross Perot:
“More spending on research and applying it commercially. A significant factor impeding the productive capacity of the US is the lack of resources devoted to research. Germany and Japan are far ahead of us on non-defense research, and probably even farther ahead in applying it to productive purposes. The US needs to place a greater emphasis on research that adds to our quality of life and has commercial value as well. The federal government could facilitate this effort by [budgetary] spending priorities and changes in the tax laws to encourage private research.” (The Dollar Crisis, p.133-134, July 2, 1996)

• There will continue to be increasing federal dollars invested into research and technology. The taxpayers of Arizona need to participate in seeing a return on those investments.

Huge amounts of federal taxpayer money -- over $100 billion in FY03 alone, are going to be invested in research and development. These increases are supported by the conservatives in the US House and Senate as well as supported by President Bush. Arizona State University needs to have necessary space in order for our researchers to be able to compete and bring some of these dollars back to Arizona.

John Marburger, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy:
“….the President provides an unprecedented level of investment in federal R&D, marking the first time in history that a President has requested an R&D budget greater than $100 billion. At $112 billion, up 8% overall from last year, this is the largest requested increase for R&D in over a decade.” (May 22, 2002)

• Conservatives elsewhere battle to get significant dollars appropriated, confident that their home state is prepared to compete.

Conservative members of the US House and Senate and officials in other states recognize that there is a national payoff for research investments – and are also fully cognizant that the economic benefits are maximized by the state where this research occurs and businesses are spun off. Arizona State University needs state investments in infrastructure so we can leverage that investment and secure federal funds.

United States Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS):
“If you do not have the basic research or the basic infrastructure to support that research, you do not go ahead with the technology you need to keep the best and brightest at home and provide employment opportunities. It’s as simple as that.” (July 11, 2002)

United States Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX):
“We need the engineers to come from our Texas universities. We want to attract the great minds and we want to keep them there. It also creates role models and mentors for our young people to also go into science and engineering.” (July 11, 2002)

United States Senator Rick Santorium (R-PA):
“America is not going to be an economy that’s going to survive on using existing technology. We’re going to survive and we’re going to grow by creating new technology and being at the forefront. We can’t be a follower, we have to be a leader.” (July 11, 2002)

United States Senator James Sensenbrenner (R-WI):
Basic science research is the engine of increased productivity for the American economy. Basic science research means more exports which means more jobs for the people of Wisconsin.” (July 11, 2002)

United States Senator Kit Bond (R-MO):
“Science in Missouri is extremely important. In this century, we’re going to lead the way in developing life sciences breakthroughs that will not only contribute to improved human health, but a cleaner environment and help hungry people around the world.” (July 11, 2002)

Newt Gingrich:
“My sense of the scale of the scientific revolution in the next 25 years is that at the level of nanoscale actitivities of quantum behaviors and of biology, the wave is going to be so profound that if you are not in a position to have people who are first rate looking at it, you’re just not going to be in the game. And so I would argue for every state they ought to be looking at what does it cost us to sustain a first-rate capability in science. … [In] Georgia for example, despite the fact that for a long time it was relatively poor and very agrarian, the existence of Georgia Tech and the Georgia Tech research facilities around the state really made a difference and is now really paying off in North Atlanta. And I think that kind of approach is one I would recommend to every single state in the country.” (May 21, 2001)

If we can’t leverage the federal dollars like Wisconsin, Missouri and others, Arizona federal tax money is on its way to Madison, Columbia and elsewhere—making them even more competitive.

• It is in our national interest to invest in R&D and science education which is critical for our national security – especially in this era.
  The bipartisan Hart-Rudman Commission on National Security to 2025, points out that the biggest threat to our national security is a weapon of mass destruction in one of our cities. The second greatest threat to our national security, according to this report, was the failure to invest in science and math and science education.

Newt Gingrich:
“The Commission unanimously concluded that the danger from under-investing in science and in math and science education was greater than the danger of any conceivable conventional war.” (May 22, 2002)

United State Congressman Zach Wamp (R-TN):
"For the dollars we invest at the federal level, we get enormous benefits that far outweigh the investment." "Academia is actually the laboratories of ideas out there."

"We invest in social security for this generation, but what are we doing for the generations beyond this generation?"

"It's competitiveness, new breakthroughs. We actually become the leader of the world for all the right reasons -- not because we have the most force, but because we're the most innovative, because we planned the best, because we care the most." (July 11, 2002)