AIP FYI #2: Of Note: S&T Policy Quotations of 2004

Congress reconvened yesterday, and President Bush will send his FY
2006 budget request to Congress in about a month. Before moving on,
this FYI, and FYI #3, will take a look back at 2004. The following
are notable quotations appearing in FYI during the last year. The
FYIs from which they are taken are noted; see
http://www.aip.org/fyi/2004/ to see the issue.

“This afternoon we got a mandate. And we got support for a set of
specific objectives that very clearly identifies exploration and
discovery as the central objective of what this agency is all
about.” – NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe on plan to return to the
moon (#7)

“I am very disappointed in the proposed [FY 2005] science budget,
and I will be working with the Administration and my congressional
colleagues to improve the numbers as we move through the budget
process. I understand that we are in a very tight fiscal situation
and that the Administration has tried to treat research and
development as favorably as possible. But we just have to find a
way to do better.” – House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood
Boehlert (R-NY) (#10)

“Two years ago, the Congress sent the President a bill authorizing a
doubling of NSF’s programs over 5 years. Despite signing that bill
to glowing reviews, the President sent us two successive budgets
that fall far short of reaching that goal.” – Rep. Eddie Bernice
Johnson (D-TX) (#11)

“Not all programs can or should receive equal priority, and this [FY
2005] budget [request] reflects priority choices consistent with
recommendations from numerous expert sources.” – OSTP Director John
Marburger (#21)

The “nation’s advantage in science and technology is key to securing
the homeland.” – Department of Homeland Security Under Secretary
Charles McQueary (#21)

“NASA has had a mixed record on the credibility of its budgeting.” –
House Science Committee Ranking Minority Member Bart Gordon (D-TN)
(#22)

“…it is going to be a major and perhaps an impossible challenge to
find additional funds for NSF for FY 2005. I am committed to NSF,
but this year’s budget is the most difficult I have seen in years.
I want to work with the Administration, but we need to find ways to
increase NSF’s budget as we move forward, if not this year, next
year.” – Senate VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations
Subcommittee Chairman Christopher “Kit” Bond (R-MO) (#23)

“We need to find that place where the need to protect America’s
homeland security interests is balanced against the well-being of
the nation’s science and technology enterprise.” – Rep. Gordon
during a hearing on the visa process (#24)

“It’s pretty obvious, it won’t be a bed of roses.” – Senate Energy
and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Pete
Domenici (R-NM) during hearing on DOE budget request for science
(#25)

“You can tell me about the fundamental aspects of matter, but money
is the fundamental building block of the tools you need to study
matter.” – Chairman Boehlert. Later in his address to a Brookhaven
National Laboratory workshop, Boehlert said, “The future of science
funding will depend on many things beyond your control – the
macroeconomic situation, the nature of competing needs, etc. But it
will also depend on how actively you can make people like me
understand why what you’re about is important to our nation.” (#32)

“. . . how important it is if we can somehow meet the goal of 3% of
defense spending for science and technology and maintain the
technological lead that is absolutely essential if we are going to
be successful or continue to be successful in the global war on
terrorism.” – Senate Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee
Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS) (#38)

“This subcommittee bows to no one” in championing NSF, but “doubling
[its budget] will be very, very difficult.” – House VA, HUD and
Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman James
Walsh (R-NY) (#45)

“I don’t think you’ll see a lot of money put into that effort.” –
House Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee
Chairman David Hobson (R-OH) discussing the Robust Nuclear Earth
Penetrator (RNEP or “bunker buster”) (#50)

“I’m concerned it’s too much, too fast.” – House VA, HUD and
Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee Ranking Minority
Member Alan Mollohan (D-WV) on NASA plan to return to the moon (#54)

“Science policy entails more than setting budgets, but that is the
bottom line of the policy process.” – OSTP Director Marburger (#55)

“We have not done enough to show the American people the connection
between the work underway in your laboratories and the problems that
affect their lives. This must change. The stakes could not be
higher.” – Senate Minority Leader Thomas Daschle (D-SD) addressing
an AAAS forum (#55)

“Now, more than ever, American science must enlighten American
statecraft.” – Secretary of State Colin Powell (#68)

“Resorting to nuclear weapons to destroy hardened targets is a
disproportionate response with too many negative ramifications and
little benefit.” – Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) on RNEP (#69)

“. . . the reality is that those countries are burrowing in their
command and control facilities, their chemical weapons, their
missiles; and we must continue to hold those at risk.” – Rep.
Heather Wilson (R-NM) speaking in support of RNEP research funding
(#69)

“We as policymakers or the regulatory agencies need good science,
science that has not been interfered with by politicians.” – Rep.
Henry Waxman (D-CA) in support of an amendment to create an
independent commission to study charges that the Administration has
polarized scientific advice. (#71)

“I assume the goal of the gentleman from California [Rep. Waxman] is
not to politicize science and research, yet I respectfully suggest
that this is what this amendment does. And the comments of the
gentleman [Rep. Waxman] on the floor were sort of blasting the Bush
Administration for some of the things they have done. . . . ” –
House Subcommittee on Research Chairman Nick Smith (R-MI) (#71)

“The Commission fully supports your vision and finds that this
journey of exploration will sustain vital national objectives here
on Earth.” – letter to President Bush from E.C. “Pete” Aldridge,
Jr., Chairman of the President’s Commission on Moon, Mars and Beyond
(#85)

“The nuclear weapons the administration is developing go by such
terms as ‘mini-nukes’ and ‘bunker busters.’ They may not posses the
yield of the nuclear warheads of the cold war era, but a mushroom
cloud is still a mushroom cloud. They can still cause monumental
destruction, massive casualties, and long-term environmental damage
to entire regions of the world.” – Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
(#89)

“We are challenging our scientists to think of a wide variety of
options and face challenges to ensure that our nuclear deterrent is
flexible and responsive to evolving threats. Failure to challenge
our physicists and engineers will limit our capabilities in the
future . . . . ” – Senator Domenici on RNEP (#89)

“Nanoscience will make the physical sciences as sexy as the life
sciences were in the last ten years.” – Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN) at DOE
NanoSummit (#95)

“Today, in Washington, Los Alamos’ reputation as a crown jewel of
science is being eclipsed by a reputation as being both
dysfunctional and untouchable. I do not yet know if the most recent
security incident is, unto itself, of great consequence. But I can
tell you that the analogy of the straw that breaks the camel’s back
is appropriate.” – Senator Domenici in a letter to LANL community
(#100)

“I hope that the American people will observe the World Year of
Physics by supporting physics education and research. I encourage
physicists and educators to engage the public, especially the
children, in physics to inspire the next generation of scientists
and engineers.” – Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI) (#105)

“The political and scientific fields are very divergent, and,
unfortunately, very few people understand the intimate workings of
both. While we have done a poor job of educating one another about
the thought processes and value systems that govern our respective
fields, we appear to have learned even less about their
intersections and boundaries.” – Rep. Ehlers (#107)

“It would be hard to think of a better person for the job.” –
Chairman Boehlert on the nomination of Arden Bement to be the NSF
director (#124)

“. . . how do we fix the existing shuttle, how do we make sure the
space station is working, and at the same time with a limited amount
of money embark on new missions to Mars and new missions to the moon
with a new vehicle? . . . I don’t think this all adds up.” – Senator
John Breaux (D-LA) (#132)

“. . . the only point I am making is that if scientists are going to
be politically active, all of us who have been in politics know that
the opposition finds ways of moving in opposite ways at times. And
so, what you could find, is that that kind of prominence will create
debates on Capitol Hill that I don’t think science should do.” –
Robert Walker, former chairman of the House Science Committee (R-PA)
(#135)

“Reducing this funding is extremely short-sighted.” – Rep. Ehlers on
FY 2005 NSF appropriation (#149)

“I am particularly pleased with his technical training and
outstanding track record at MIT. He understands the critical role
science, research and advanced technologies will play in meeting our
energy challenges.” – Senator Domenici on nomination of Samuel
Bodman as Energy Secretary
(#157)

“Grim, in a word. . . very grim.” – Bob Palmer, Minority Staff
Director for House Science Committee, describing overall science and
technology budget outlook (#160)

“You can change the image of things to come. But you can’t do it
wringing your hands, and you can’t do it sitting on your fingers,
you’ve got to get out and get involved and defend science as you
have never defended science before. Science can, in my judgement,
be sold to this Administration and this Congress. I suggest that
the best way to do that is to recount to them over and over again. .
.. that the economic destiny of America lies in science and
technology, in science and research. And if we don’t invest in
research, and we don’t inspire our children, and if we don’t educate
them in Congress, the competition out there, and China is a good
example, but Europe also, will begin to eat our scientific lunch.” –
John Porter, former chairman of the House Labor, Health and Human
Service, Education Appropriations Subcommittee (R-IL) (#161)