AIP FYI#45: Science Committee Takes Issue with FY 2006 S&T Request

FYI
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News
Number 45: March 31, 2005

Science Committee Takes Issue with FY 2006 S&T Request

A House Science Committee hearing last month on the Bush
Administration’s FY 2006 R&D budget request was critical in tone
regarding both overall funding figures and proposed changes to
programs.

The opening comments of the committee’s top Republican and Democrat
capture the committee’s thinking. House Science Committee Chairman
Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) stated (paragraphs combined in the interest
of space): “The budget proposal before us raises serious questions
about our nation’s direction in the coming years. While the
President’s budget proposal for R&D can legitimately be seen either
as a glass half full or a glass half empty, no one could describe it
as a glass that is filled enough to satisfy the nation’s thirst for
scientific advancement. . . . The budget is a glass half full in
that R&D as a whole has fared better, and basic research has fared
no worse, than non-defense domestic discretionary spending as a
whole. In other words, it would be unfair to describe the attitude
behind this budget as in any way ‘anti-science.’ We are living
through a period of stringent austerity, and the science budget
reflects that rather than any hostility toward science.” Boehlert
praised the requested 12% increase for NIST’s laboratories, and
noted the NSF increase. But he had far more words that were
critical: ” Key science agencies, most notably perhaps DOE’s Office
of Science, would see their budgets cut. NSF education programs
would be cut by 12 percent — about as misguided a policy as one
could imagine. I should say Congress tried going down this
foolhardy path with regard to NSF in the early 1980s and quickly
reversed course. And perhaps most disturbingly of all, the outlook
for the outyears seems to be more of the same. Now, I don’t doubt
that science growth will have to be restrained in this budget
environment. . . . But I think we have to think long and hard
about whether it is in the long-term interest of the United States
to have a multi-year period of real dollar cuts in spending on R&D.
And we also have to think more clearly about what our priorities are
in a period of restrained growth. . . .”

The committee’s Ranking Minority Member, Bart Gordon (D-TN) said in
his opening remarks that OSTP Director John Marburger had stated
that this is “a pretty good year for research funding.” Gordon
disputed this characterization, citing proposed cuts to K-12 math
and science education, NASA’s aeronautics research, NOAA research,
the DOE Office of Science, the Manufacturing Extension Program, and
the Advanced Technology Program. He called the Administration’s
approach “short-sighted,” adding, “maintaining a lead in science
technology is a flat out race. If we stop running at the top speed
we can manage, we will lose. Even in the current fiscal crisis this
budget is not the top speed we can manage for science and technology
investment.” While Boehlert replied that his perspective on the
budget request was not exactly that of Gordon, Boehlert said,
“whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican, chairman or a ranking
member, we are committed to the proposition that wise investments in
science pay handsome dividends for our future.”

Testifying at this hearing were OSTP Director John Marburger, Energy
Secretary Samuel Bodman, National Science Foundation Director Arden
Bement, Commerce Deputy Secretary Theodore Kassinger, and Homeland
Security Under Secretary Charles McQueary. Their opening remarks
focused on budget priorities with little discussion of what would
not be funded. As expected, the witnesses stressed budget growth
over the last four years, as compared to year-to-year. Said
Marburger, “The administration has made difficult choices and it has
maintained the strength in priority areas such as nanotechnology,
information technology, the hydrogen initiative and space
exploration.” Energy Secretary Bodman, who was testifying before
this committee for the first time, explained “I believe very
passionately in the role that science has played over the last
century in the economic growth of our country, and I really believe
that what occurs in this budget will continue that record on into
the future.” NSF Director Bement said, as he has before, that “in
light of the tight fiscal climate, we believe we have fared
relatively well.” Regarding the proposed 12.4% cut in the Education
and Human Resources Directorate, Bement stated, “although we have
found it necessary to make cuts in these programs, we are also
finding ways to leverage other resources in support of education.”
Commerce Deputy Secretary Kassinger avoided the proposed cut and
termination (respectively) in the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership and the Advanced Technology Program. Homeland Security
Under Secretary McQueary’s testimony centered on the development of
technologies.

Committee members were skeptical in their statements and questions.
Boehlert called the proposed cut in the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership “unacceptable,” and wondered if the NSF education
recommendation was “a stealth effort to get it out of NSF and over
exclusively in [the Department of] Education,” saying it would be
“vigorously oppose[d].” He later said that the proposed DOE Office
of Science budget request “does badly” at funding its three major
priorities. Gordon expressed skepticism about the proposed transfer
of Coast Guard polar ice breaking ships to NSF and future costs.
Other questions centered on nanotechnology, energy research, and
external safety regulation at civilian DOE laboratories.

When time passed to Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI) he told the witnesses,
“I really have very few questions. I have lots of complaints. And
the point is simply that the funding for science this year is just
inadequate. I recognize the tough budget, I recognize tough times,
I recognize the military necessities we have. But we seem to forget
the important role that research and education plays in our national
defense and also in our national prosperity.” He later called the
proposed S&T research and education budget request “very penny-wise
and pound-foolish, adding, “the money we’re putting into science is
likely, for the long term, much more important for the defense of
this nation than any money we’re spending this year on the Defense
budget.” Ehlers was especially critical of the proposed cut in NSF
education funding.

Also coming under fire was the NOAA request to reduce by almost half
the funding for the Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program. In response
to questions by Rep. Michael Honda (D-CA) about NIST funding,
Marburger said “we’re very serious about our proposal to eliminate
the ATP Program,” saying “it clearly is not a core mission of
NIST.” During her time, Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL) spoke of the
lengthy, and ultimately successful, effort that had been made to
raise physical sciences funding at the Department of Energy’s Office
of Science, and “that suddenly . . . the priority is going down
again.” The one contrary voice to the general tone of this hearing
was that of Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) who cited the $500 billion
level of deficit spending, and said, “either we’re serious about
this $500 billion deficit or we’re not.” Rohrabacher also made
critical comments about DOE’s fusion energy sciences program, wanted
information about NOAA’s fleet, and wanted to know if commercial
entities profiting from the federal nanotechnology program would be
required to repay the government.

This hearing did not review the NASA budget request which was the
topic of a separate hearing. That hearing will be the subject of a
future FYI.

Richard M. Jones

Media and Government Relations Division

The American Institute of Physics

fyi@aip.org

http://www.aip.org/gov

(301) 209-3094