Eighteen of the nineteen Democrats on the House Science Committee
have signed a hard-hitting analysis of the Bush Administration's FY
2005 request for civilian science and technology programs. The seven
page document, entitled "Additional Democratic Views and Estimates
on the FY2005 Budget for Civilian Science and Technology Programs," was
signed by all the committee's Democrats except Rep. Brian Baird (D-
WA). No Republican members of the Science Committee endorsed these
Additional Views.
The Science Committee recently filed its "Views and Estimates" report,
which is to guide the House Budget Committee as it makes its funding
decisions. This report, written by the committee's Republican staff,
can be accessed at http://www.house.gov/science/press/108/views05.pdf This
report was signed by both Republican and Democratic members of the
Science Committee. Selections from the Democratic Views and Estimates
follow, with paragraphs combined in the interest of space:
OVERALL: "Each failure to invest in infrastructure,
in education, or in innovation can contribute to the costs of doing
business in America and create a rationale for businesses to close
their doors, for jobs to be moved offshore, and for opportunities
to simply slip away. Innovation is about responding to real public
needs today to guarantee that our citizens have jobs and a better
quality of life tomorrow. At a time when we have suffered three years
of recession and jobless recovery, and at a time when more businesses
are moving work to foreign operations, a stagnant level of investment,
as we find in the President's FY 2005 budget submission, is simply
unacceptable. We have to do better. We would concede that such a
task is almost beyond our measure due to the horrific Federal deficit
that we face. This year's budget request alone will probably add
at least $600 billion to the national debt when costs of the occupation
of Iraq are finally accounted for. Given that burden, it is hard
to argue for increasing funding for investments, but it is just such
investments in our economy and our people that can help get us out
of the hole dug by this Administration's fiscal choices. So not only
do we have to do better than the Administration's proposal, we cannot
wait for a future Administration, having wrestled this irresponsible
deficit to the ground, to take action. Investments have to happen
in this next fiscal year."
FIRST RECOMMENDATION: "Increase civilian R&D spending
in function 250 and function 270 by at least five percent in the
FY 2005 budget. . . . Only after intense activity on the part of
many interested scientific and industry groups, and by a bipartisan
coalition of Members of Congress, was the NSF-doubling bill enacted.
That bill, and other efforts to increase funding for the physical
sciences, are emblematic of the broad recognition that funding for
R&D in the physical sciences has lagged dangerously in recent
years. For this reason, and recognizing the staggering problem we
face with the current deficit, we are recommending a modest 5 percent
increase in funding for functions 250 (Science) and 270 (Energy)
of the Federal budget. Any number for increased R&D investment
is somewhat arbitrary. However, we believe that a 5% increase for
these functions is a good place to start and hope that an improved
budgetary climate will allow these figures to increase dramatically
in future budgets. We simply must improve upon the President's budget
for NSF, which falls $1.6 billion below the level he endorsed in
H.R. 4664. A 5% increase would also allow us to move towards the
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST)
goal of bringing the physical sciences and engineering into parity
with the life sciences. . . . We suspect there are many budgetary
choices that could be made to meet our goal of a five percent increase
in R&D funding. The Budget Committee has the cross-cutting responsibility
and authority to tend to these needs right now, and we encourage
that Committee to do so."
SECOND RECOMMENDATION: "Until the Congress has better
information on which to judge the long-term cost of the President's
Moon/Mars initiative, we believe that NASA's FY 2005 funding request
should be reallocated in a manner that strengthens NASA's existing
programs, helps address the backlog of deferred maintenance at NASA's
facilities, ensures that the Shuttle will continue to fly safely
for as long as it is needed, ensures that the International Space
Station will be a safe and productive facility, makes a start on
a replacement means of getting U.S. astronauts into space, and enables
the analyses that will be needed to develop a viable and sustainable
exploration agenda."
THIRD RECOMMENDATION: "Programs under the Committee's
jurisdiction that enhance the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing
and promote innovation should be fully funded. These programs include
the Manufacturing Extension Program (MEP) and the Advanced Technology
Partnership (ATP) in the Department of Commerce, as well as cooperative
government/industry/university programs funded through other civilian
agencies, including NASA, NIST, and the Department of Energy."
Following the above, the document provides an "Analysis of the
President's FY 2005 budget for R&D." It charges that "highly
selective or inaccurate numbers" and "tricky accounting" were
employed by the Administration, and states that:
"The Request for Science Funding is Flat - The Administration
brags about a 5% increase for R&D spending in 2005, but fails
to mention that the increase is largely targeted for weapons development
and other defense programs. In our view, the most representative
measure of R&D funding, and the measure which best captures the
economic and broader societal benefits of R&D funding, is the
concept of the 'Federal S&T budget' (FST), which the National
Academy of Sciences developed several years ago. FST includes civilian
R&D and defense R&D, but not weapons development. Page 61
of the 'Analytical Perspectives' document, from the Administration's
own package of FY 2005 budget documents, actually shows a decrease
of 0.4 percent in proposed FST funding. This is the first time that
any President has requested a decrease in the FST since it has been
tracked. Further, government-wide funding for basic research would
increase by only 0.6% and funding for applied research by only 0.5%
- both well below the rate of inflation."
Other sections of this document discuss job creation, earmarks, the
doubling of the National Science Foundation budget, the Human Space
Flight Initiative, and the Department of Commerce's Advanced Technology
Program and Manufacturing Extension Program. The entire document can
be viewed on the Democratic Caucus section of the Science Committee's
website at: http://www.house.gov/science_democrats/welcome.htm
Enlarge text
Shrink text
Print
E-mail
Digg this
Del.icio.us
Furl