The Gloves Come Off: Science Committee Members Spar Over R&D Cuts

Perhaps it is inevitable, given the increasingly contentious climate on Capitol Hill, but Republican and Democratic members of the House Science Committee have now joined the fray over the future direction of federal spending. In a reversal of the committee’s traditional bipartisan approach to science issues, both sides have just issued documents leaving little doubt about their approaches to science policy and spending, and about each other’s positions.

For the third time in recent days, documents have been filed suggesting cuts in future research and development spending. The occasion this time was what has been very much an inside-the-beltway document, the “Views and Estimates” of the Science Committee. This is an annual, and little noticed exercise in which committees provide the House Budget Committee with their recommendations about future spending. Its significance this year is that it is one of the first, if not the first, Republican congressional policy statements on federal R&D spending.

The “Views and Estimates, Committee on Science,” document is five pages long and was written by the committee’s Republicans. Anyone looking for bottom line estimates or recommendations for NSF, DOE, NASA, NIST, and other science budgets that the committee has jurisdiction over will not find them. Instead, the document states: “While the Administration has elected not to make tough choices, the Committee will not shirk its responsibilities and intends to produce responsible authorization bills that will reflect a commitment to both good fundamental science and a balanced budget. As a starting point, the Committee intends to authorize every agency under its jurisdiction at less than FY 1995 levels. Every program under the Committee’s jurisdiction will be examined closely.” There are no recommended figures for any agency’s FY 1996 budget. This document ends by stating, “The cuts required by the Committee as our contribution to deficit reduction will be real and will come from virtually every program under our jurisdiction; but as an authorizing committee of the House those decisions are our responsibility.”

The Democratic members of the House Science Committee issued their own set of “Views and Estimates.” This document is 14 pages long, with additional attachments. The bottom line recommendations in this document are identical to the Clinton Administration’s request, although the Democratic members state, “The President’s FY 1996 budget request underfunds civilian R&D.”

While new numbers are not found in either document, both parties go to considerable length to expound their philosophy. The Republican document refers to previous deliberations over competitiveness, and states, “There is a school of thought that subscribes to the `Government as Oz’ theory; that is, the bureaucracy knows all and sees all, including the future.” Later on, “Members have a stark choice: technological freedom and opportunity embodied in the Contract With America, or the same old `contract:' command and control.”

In reply, the committee’s Democrats state, “The majority of the Democratic Members of the Science Committee consider the Republican’s approach to R&D policy short-sighted, naive, and damaging for the country.” They continue, “The Republican Contract, if carried out to the letter, would require a 30 to 50 percent cut in Federal R&D spending to offset the costs of a socially inequitable and economically counter-productive $200 billion tax cut.” This document criticizes the Republican document for focusing on “areas of divergence” and lack of specifics.

Where this leaves science spending for FY 1996 and beyond is an unknown. The Democrats state, “We are pleased that there is still a broad area of shared, bipartisan support for many of these programs even as we acknowledge that there are real and perhaps growing differences on other programs.” The extent to which the committee is able to preserve this “broad area of shared, bipartisan support,” vital during coming budget cutting deliberations, in what has become a very contentious Congress is also an unknown.