On March 4, the House Science Committee released a 14-page review
of President Bush's FY 2005 request for key science and technology
programs. These "Views and Estimates" are intended
to guide the House Budget Committee, and Congress more generally, in
making funding decisions for the fiscal year that starts on October1.
About half of the committee members signed this document. As expected,
the percentage was higher for Republican members (70%) than Democratic
members (30%). The committee's new Ranking Minority Member, Bart Gordon
(Tennessee) signed these Views and Estimates, as did six other Democrats.
This is a highly-readable report providing a general review of proposed
science and technology spending as well as commentary on specific agencies.
It can be accessed at http://www.house.gov/science/press/108/views05.pdf.
Selections from this document follow; paragraphs have been combined
in the interest of space:
BACKGROUND: "As the House and Senate begin consideration
of the President's Fiscal Year 2005 budget request, there is no question
that a great deal of debate will revolve around the budget deficit
and its impact on the long-term economic health of the Nation. As these
discussions move forward, the Science Committee urges Congress to recognize
the importance and contributions of science and technology to productivity
and economic growth - and consequently - fiscal security. Indeed, nothing
benefits federal revenues over the long-term as much as accelerated
economic growth, and nothing fuels long-term growth more than science
and technology. Further, the strength of the U.S. scientific enterprise
has long been a crucial component of America's national security."
OVERALL R&D FUNDING: "The Committee believes the proposed
funding for basic research is insufficient. Funding short-term development
at the expense of longer-term basic and applied research is not advisable,
and neglects those portions of R&D where government support is
most crucial. The Committee also believes that the budget must fully
consider appropriate balances between defense and non- defense R&D
spending and between biomedical and nonbiomedical spending. At $69
and $29 billion, respectively, the R&D budgets of DOD and the National
Institutes of Health (NIH) comprise 75 percent of the total R&D
budget, including 93 percent of the FY05 increases. While fully acknowledging
the important contributions of these agencies, the Committee urges
that similar attention be given to other important R&D agencies,
such as NSF, DOE, and NIST."
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: "Most of the requested
R&D funding for DHS ($1.04 billion) is for the S&T Directorate,
which receives a 14 percent increase. A significant part of the increase
is directed toward operational expansion of the BioWatch system, which
is designed to monitor major cities for biological agents. Funding
for more basic research programs does not fare as well. The funding
for University Programs decreases dramatically, from $69 million in
FY04 to $30 million in FY05. The Committee is concerned that if DHS
does not make and maintain investments in basic research, including
research at universities and national laboratories, the next generation
of homeland security technologies will not be available against the
next generation of threats.
DOE OFFICE OF SCIENCE: "The Committee believes that the
Administration's FY05 request for DOE's Office of Science, which funds
40 percent of the Nation's physical science research, is inadequate.
The budget proposes funding the Office at $3.4 billion, a reduction
of 2 percent. This is significantly less than the $4.2 billion included
in the House-passed conference report for H.R.6, The Energy Policy
Act of 2003. The proposal also falls far short of the goal of the President's
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, which recommended in
a 2002 report that the FY04 budget request should begin bringing funding
for the physical sciences into parity with that of the life sciences.
DOE's Office of Science is the largest federal supporter of the civilian
physical sciences, a critical component of the federal research portfolio
that has been dwarfed by support for biomedical research in recent
years. The Committee is particularly concerned about the future of
user facilities and academic research funded by the Office of Science."
DOE ENERGY SUPPLY R&D: "The Committee supports the
President's initiative calling for America to lead the world in developing
hydrogen-powered automobiles and the necessary fueling infrastructure
to support them, although many details have not yet been determined.
The Committee is pleased that the Administration has requested $228
million for hydrogen technology programs, a 28 percent increase over
FY04 enacted levels. The Committee is concerned, however, that the
proposed increases in hydrogen programs come at the expense of much
of the rest of the R&D funded by DOE's Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy account. For example, biomass R&D, which is crucial to increasing
our energy independence while helping American farmers, receives a
significant cut."
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, NIST: "The budget request includes
$422 million for the core NIST laboratory functions (the Scientific
and Technical Research and Services account, or STRS) in FY05 - an
increase of about $84 million (according to updated NIST figures),
or almost 25 percent. The Committee strongly supports this request,
which is especially needed to restore steep funding cuts NIST's base
programs sustained in FY04. The full increase is necessary to restore
the cuts."
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE: MEP and ATP: "The Committee is
concerned that the $39 million request for the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership fails to restore the devastating 65 percent cut in FY04.
MEP provides smaller manufacturers with technical assistance to become
more competitive, and it has a proven track record; numerous studies
bear out its contributions to the economy. The FY04 level of funding
will result in a downsizing process (currently underway) that will
close many MEP centers and potentially cripple the program. The proposed
budget for FY05 would only reinforce this trend. The Committee believes
that it will reduce the effectiveness of MEP at a time when it is most
needed. The Committee continues to support ATP and is disappointed
that the Administration has included no funds for ATP in the FY05 request.
The Committee supports funding the program at the FY04 enacted level
($169 million)."
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION: "The FY05 budget request
for NSF is $5.75 billion, an increase of 3 percent, or $167million
over the FY04 level. This insufficient request is $1.6 billion below
the funding level in the National Science Foundation Authorization
Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-368). The budget requests the largest percentage
increases for personnel and administrative initiatives and for construction
of major research facilities. The Research and Related Activities account,
which contains the funds for most NSF research grants programs, receives
a 4.7 percent increase. However, actual spending on research programs
would increase by only 2.8 percent because the Administration transfers
into the research account funds that would be used to close out the
Math and Science Partnerships program (an education and human resources
program). While recognizing that budget realities may not allow Congress
to fund NSF at the guidance level provided in the current authorization,
the Committee still believes that significant increases for NSF's overall
budget are warranted. Congress should provide as much funding as possible
to strengthen support for core science and education programs, and
priority areas such as information technology and nanoscale science
and engineering research." "The Committee strongly opposes
the proposed cuts for programs in NSF's Education and Human Resources
(EHR) account. The Committee is especially troubled by the proposal
to eliminate the NSF's Math and Science Partnership Program. This program
was specifically authorized as part of the National Science Foundation
Authorization Act of 2002."
NASA: "The Committee has just begun holding hearings on
the President's [Moon/Mars] initiative and does not yet have a position
on it. Moreover, the Committee's evaluation of the proposed initiative
has already highlighted many unanswered questions about its costs.
As a result, the Committee cannot yet evaluate whether NASA's overall
FY 05 budget request is appropriate, or too high or too low." "The
Committee is also unable to evaluate the proposed $1.1 billion FY05
budget for Biological and Physical Research, most of which would be
spent on the Space Station." "While the budget for Space
Science appears to be adequate, the Committee is still reviewing the
projects that will be deferred or eliminated to carry out the President's
proposal. Of particular interest is the Joint Dark Energy Mission,
which was to have been funded by NASA and DOE. The Committee is also
concerned with NASA's decision to cancel future Hubble servicing missions.
Any decision to reinstate Hubble servicing missions would likely require
additional funding in the FY05 budget. NASA's proposed FY05 budget
for Earth Science is $1.4 billion, a decrease of nearly 3 percent from
FY04 levels. The Committee believes that the budget request for these
programs is inadequate to meet the pressing needs for better satellite
data. The cuts, which are designed to help fund the exploration initiative,
seem ill-timed when the Administration has announced a significant
new global change research plan."
Enlarge text
Shrink text
Print
E-mail
Digg this
Del.icio.us
Furl