Sensenbrenner Speaks on Science Funding
Below are highlights from remarks by House Science Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), delivered yesterday at the annual meeting of the Universities Research Associates (URA) Council of Presidents. Notably, Sensenbrenner criticizes both the science initiatives in President Clinton’s State of the Union Address and a recent Senate bill to authorize an increase in science funding (S. 1305; see FYI #133 , 1997) for lacking coherence and credible justification. As head of the House authorizing committee for science, Sensenbrenner warns that in the past, similar authorization bills calling for increased science funding often had “no credibility with the appropriators.” He reports that an effort is underway, led by Science Committee Vice Chairman Vern Ehlers (R-MI), to draft a policy that would provide the basis for future science initiatives. (FYI #15 will describe Ehler’s effort, while FYI #14 contains Sensenbrenner’s comments on the Global Warming Treaty, the Next Generation Internet, the National Spallation Neutron Source, and the Large Hadron Collider.)
****** SENSENBRENNER ON CLINTON’S STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS:
"...Today, the scientific community has good reason to be optimistic about the future of federal funding for science. In his recent State of the Union Address, President Clinton called for ...the largest funding increase in history for the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and the National Cancer Institute.’ I am pleased that he has joined the Congress in recognizing the need to adequately invest in scientific research. However, my optimism is tempered by the fact that President Clinton acknowledged the need to invest in a lot of programs in his Tuesday speech.”
“While I support increasing the federal budget for science, I believe that new money must be justified with a coherent, long term science policy that is consistent with the need for a balanced budget. The historic balanced budget agreement reached last year puts limits on discretionary funding between now and the year 2002. Within this time frame, any large increases in federal R&D will be difficult and can only come at the expense of other popular federal programs. Developing support among the U.S. public, and subsequently their elected officials, is the challenge for those who want to make a real improvement in federal science funding. While I was encouraged by the President’s statements on science, I will not be satisfied until I see his budget which will be submitted to Congress on February 2nd. President Clinton’s rather vague reference to doubling the budget for three scientific institutions leaves many questions unanswered: How long will it take to double those budgets? Where will we get the money? Will other science accounts suffer as a result?
“I hope that the President’s budget will provide answers to these questions and contribute more than money to this country’s need for a science policy that will allow us to maintain our position as the world’s intellectual and economic leader in the next century.”
SENATE BILL 1305:
“There is another reason for the scientific community to be optimistic. The Senate has introduced bipartisan legislation, S.1305, which would double funding for science over the next ten years. I applaud the support that this legislation has generated for science. However, this legislation does not develop support into a credible science policy that justifies increased funding and sustains it over time. S. 1305 threatens to return us to the bad old days when science authorizations simply increased spending for each account by 10 percent every year. The authorizations had no credibility with the appropriators and science was sent to the end of the discretionary spending line where it had to fight for funding scraps. I do not intend to let this happen again.”
SCIENCE POLICY:
“As most of you know, Speaker Gingrich and I have assigned Science Committee Vice Chairman Vern Ehlers to complete a study of our nation’s science policy. It is my hope that the Ehlers study will provide the justification for sustainable increases in funding missing from the well intentioned S.1305 and the aimless statement made by President Clinton Tuesday night. In the mean time, I am scheduled to meet next week with Speaker Gingrich, Budget Committee Chairman Kasich, and the leaders of the Appropriations Committee to make my case for science funding as we begin the yearly funding process.”
[Here Sensenbrenner discusses several specific items; see FYI #14 for his words.]
SCIENCE COMMITTEE AGENDA:
“Finally, I want to assure you that the Science Committee will continue its vigorous oversight agenda. It does us no good to increase spending for scientific research if we allow the tax dollars we receive to be squandered.
“I await the President’s budget with cautious optimism. I am hopeful that my next speech will be full of praise for a thoughtful and visionary science budget....”
****** As Sensenbrenner notes, “the challenge for those who want to make a real improvement in federal science funding” is building public support, especially as increasing R&D investments will mean finding offsets from other federal programs.
